In the Weekly Republican Address, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell discusses the flawed health care bill passed by Democrats and why it should be repealed and replaced.
McConnell says, "In one of the most divisive legislative debates in modern history, Democrats decided to go the partisan route and blatantly ignore the will of the people. Americans opposed this legislation, and, now theyre clamoring to see it repealed and replaced. Democratic Leaders and White House officials may be celebrating their victory this week, but most of the rest of the country is not. Most people arent interested in celebrating a bill that makes their lives more complicated, takes more out of their paychecks and puts decisions theyre used to making themselves into the hands of federal bureaucrats."
How's that Obamacare working out for you? As well as the Obama "stimulus" package?
Employers are already warning workers about higher health-care costs and reduced benefits, according to The Wall Street Journal.
From a new WSJ editorial:
Even before President Obama signed the bill on Tuesday, Caterpillar said it would cost the company at least $100 million more in the first year alone. Medical device maker Medtronic warned that new taxes on its products could force it to lay off a thousand workers. Now Verizon joins the roll of businesses staring at adverse consequences.
In an email titled "President Obama Signs Health Care Legislation" sent to all employees Tuesday night, the telecom giant warned that "we expect that Verizon's costs will increase in the short term." While executive vice president for human resources Marc Reed wrote that "it is difficult at this point to gauge the precise impact of this legislation," and that ObamaCare does reflect some of the company's policy priorities, the message to workers was clear: Expect changes for the worse to your health benefits as the direct result of this bill, and maybe as soon as this year.
And this is just the beginning of the havoc Obamacare will create.
Few people have gone from hero to heavy so quickly in American politics as Rep. Bart Stupak, who billed himself as the champion of the unborn ... until he sold his vote to the abortion industry to support Obamacare.
Columnist Kathleen Parker offers a look at Stupak's pathetic betrayal of the pro-life movement.
From her column:
Ultimately, he was weak and overwhelmed by raw political power. History is no stranger to such moments, but this one needs to be understood for what it was. A deception.
The executive order promising that no federal funds will be used for abortion is utterly useless, and everybody knows it. First, the president can revoke it as quickly as he signs it.
Second, an order cannot confer jurisdiction in the courts or establish any grounds for suing anybody in court, according to a former White House counsel. The order is therefore judicially unenforceable.
Finally, an executive order cannot trump or change a federal statute.
One can reasonably surmise that Obama, a former constitutional law professor, is well aware of the uselessness of his promise. Perhaps this is why he didn't mention it during the bill-signing ceremony Tuesday.
Stupak, too, knew that the executive order was merely political cover for him and his pro-life colleagues. He knew it because several members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops explained it to him, according to sources. The only way to prevent public funding for abortion was for his amendment to be added to the Senate bill.
Clearly, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the president didn't want that. What they did want was the abortion funding that the Senate bill allowed.
Read the full column, "Stupak's fall from pro-life grace", here.
From a new editorial in Investor's Business Daily:
Sunday's vote exposed the ugly truth that ObamaCare is not really about health care at all. It's all about who pays for it and who controls it — in effect a massive wealth-redistribution scheme.
Those who believe this will lead to some medical nirvana will likely be disappointed. Fact is, this poorly designed monstrosity will lead to lower-quality care, higher costs, fewer practicing physicians, higher taxes and fewer jobs.
We've done more than 150 editorials in the past year or so documenting these problems. Democrats surely understand them. Yet, despite a recent CNN poll showing that 59% of Americans oppose ObamaCare, Congress approved it anyway.
Why? Because it's not really about health care. It's the largest wealth grab in American history, masquerading as health care "reform," another step in the socialization of Americans' income in the name of "fairness" and "spread(ing) the wealth around," as Obama himself has put it.
The Republican National Committee raised more than $1 million in new pledges since Sunday's House vote to enact Obamacare. The campaign, which uses the clever tag line of "Fire Pelosi," is designed to raise money to help Republicans capture majority control of the House.
Sam Rohrer on Obamacare: 'Stunning disregard for the constitutional rights of every American'
State Rep. Sam Rohrer (R-Berks), who is also seeking the Republican nomination for Pennsylvania governor, issued the following statement Monday in response to the approval in the House of Representatives of the health care overhaul bill:
"Last night the world watched the U.S. House of Representatives act with stunning disregard for the constitutional rights of every American, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. What passed under the rally call of civil rights and human dignity was in fact one of the strongest challenges to individual freedom in a generation.
In winning passage for the healthcare overhaul using every unsavory procedural tool, threat and backroom promise, they broke faith with their own pledge of openness and transparency. But far worse than hollow campaign promises is the shame in knowing that public officials who knowingly violate their oath to defend the Constitution, commit an act far more injurious to the public trust than bowing to raw politics.
If and when President Obama signs this unconstitutional healthcare bill into law, the roadmap for Pennsylvania’s legal challenge is clear. From the disintegration of the separation of powers between the state and federal government to the misapplication of the Commerce Clause to the lack of congressional authority to apply a direct tax on citizens, the Congress has given us an obvious framework to oppose this bad law.
As Pennsylvania's governor, I will use the powers of the office to defend the rights of every citizen to make private decisions, like the purchase of health insurance, for themselves. I will vigorously defend the responsibilities of our elected state legislative bodies, under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, to make decisions about any restructuring of laws that regulate the conduct of health insurance companies and providers. This is simply not the role or right of the federal government.
In my administration, I will never hesitate to defend the constitutional rights of every citizen. This will be my first and highest priority."
For the record, the following members of Congress from Pennsylvania voted on Sunday to raise your taxes, plunge the nation deeper into debt and impose a government-run health care system on Americans.
They voted "yes" to Obamacare. You should vote "no" when you see their names on the ballot in May and November:
John Boehner, the next Speaker of the House after Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are bounced out in November, promises to repeal Obamacare when Republicans take back control of the House.
If Republicans take control of the House this fall, Minority Leader John Boehner said Sunday he'd work to repeal the health care bill that's heading to final congressional votes.
"If this bill passes, we will have an effort to repeal the bill, and we'll do it the same way that we approached health care on a step by step basis," the Ohio congressman said in an advanced transcript of NBC's "Meet the Press." I'd have a bill on the floor the first thing out, to eliminate the Medicare cuts, eliminate the tax increases, eliminate the mandate that every American has to buy health insurance and the employer mandate that's going to cover jobs."
Rep. Joe Pitts: 'This is a career-defining vote on the life issue'
Rep. Bart Stupak accepted his 30 pieces of silver from Barack Obama on Sunday to give the Democrats enough votes to pass a government takeover of health care.
Rep. Joe Pitts (PA-16) issued the following statement following the announcement that President Barack Obama will issue an executive order addressing the concerns pro-life Democrats have with the Senate health bill:
"From a pro-life perspective, I find absolutely no comfort in this executive order. This puts the fate of the unborn in the hands of the most pro-abortion president in history.
"This is a career-defining vote on the life issue. Any member of either party who votes for this bill will never again be able to claim they have always stood for the most important and fundamental of all human rights.
"I congratulate the many pro-life Democrats who continue to hold firm on principle and who will join me in voting against this terrible bill later today."
Barack Obama had a lifetime pro-life rating of 0 (zero) percent during his Senate career from the National Right to Life Committee, according to Pitts, and a 100 percent pro-choice rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League.
Medicare is broke. Social Security is broke. The postal service is broke. The entire federal government is broke. Why am I having such a difficult time believing that Obamacare will end up reducing the federal deficit, just like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi say?
From POLITICO:
The Democratic health care bill would cost $940 billion over 10 years and cut the federal deficit over the next two decades — figures that should help ease the worries of fiscal hawks who have been reluctant about supporting the sweeping measure.
The bill would reduce the deficit by about $130 billion in the first 10 years and by $1.2 trillion over the second 10 years. It will expand coverage to 95 percent of Americans, according to Congressional Budget Office figures released Thursday by House Democrats.
Why do I have such a hard time believing the government? Would Obama lie?
Even if Nancy Pelosi conjures up parliamentary tricks to pass Obamacare, expect a long legal battle as states line up to sue the federal government over the unconstitutional federal takeover of the health-care system. Pennsylvania is one of 37 states that have threatened to sue over Obamacare.
From The Associated Press:
Idaho's governor on Wednesday became the first state chief executive to sign a measure requiring his attorney general to sue the federal government if the U.S. Congress passes health care reform that forces Americans to buy insurance.
"What the Idaho Health Freedom Act says is that the citizens of our state won't be subject to another federal mandate or turn over another part of their life to government control," Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter said.
Constitutional law experts say Otter's action is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states. But the movement reflects a growing national frustration with President President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states nationwide.
Democratic leaders in Washington D.C. are hoping to vote on the U.S. health care bill this weekend, but it is not clear if they have enough votes to pass it. The bill is Obama's top domestic priority and the health care issue could help determine whether Democrats retain control of Congress in the November election.
Last week, Virginia legislators passed a measure similar to Idaho's new law, but Otter was the first state chief executive to sign such a bill, according the American Legislative Exchange Council, which created model legislation for Idaho and other states. The Washington, D.C.,-based nonprofit group promotes limited government.
Otter, a Republican, already warned U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in December that Idaho was considering litigation if health reform went through.
Shocking AP Fact Check: Premiums Will Rise Under Obamacare
From a new "Fact Check" by The Associated Press on Obamacare:
Buyers, beware: President Barack Obama says his health care overhaul will lower premiums by double digits, but check the fine print.
Premiums are likely to keep going up even if the health care bill passes, experts say. If cost controls work as advertised, annual increases would level off with time. But don't look for a rollback. Instead, the main reason premiums would be more affordable is that new government tax credits would help cover the cost for millions of people.
I cannot believe Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have been lying to us all this time!
So it's come down to this — desperate Democratic leaders strong-arming members on the worst bill ever before they go home to explain to constituents why they decided to commit political suicide.
We've said just about all we've had to say on this issue — actually dating back to 1993-94, when we wrote nearly 100 editorials in opposition to HillaryCare. Since January of last year, we've weighed in 150 more times against the latest version of socialized medicine.
The newspaper offers 15 reasons why a government takeover of the finest medical system in the world makes no sense. Read the full editorial at the newspaper's Web site.
Rep. Parker Griffith (R-AL): "In the next 10 days, Democrats in Washington will try and jam through a massive government takeover of health care. It would raise taxes, slash Medicare benefits and destroy American jobs. It would put federal bureaucrats in charge of medical decisions that should be made by patients and doctors. And it must be stopped."
Republican Party of Pennsylvania Chairman Rob Gleason released the following statement regarding President Obama's latest push for a government takeover of the nation's health care system:
"Today, the American people learned that, when it comes to reforming our health care system, President Obama and Washington Democrats are more concerned about 'getting it done' than getting it done right," Gleason said. "Despite nearly a year of failed attempts to push their government-run health care experiment through Congress, Democrats refuse to stop and listen to Americans who have legitimate and substantive concerns about this cornerstone of an extremely liberal agenda.
"Over the past year, Democrats have employed closed-door meetings, late night votes and even taxpayer-funded bribes in an attempt to pass government-run health care, but to no avail. Now, President Obama is leading the charge of this last-ditch effort to pass legislation that will raise taxes, kill jobs and drive a government-sized wedge between patients and their doctors.
"President Obama may be saying that 'now is the time to make a decision,' but continues to ignore the fact that the American people have been soundly rejecting the Democrats' government-run health care plan for nearly year."
When billionaire Warren Buffett (the second richest man in America behind Bill Gates) speaks, people tend to listen.
From POLITICO:
Billionaire investor Warren Buffett advised President Barack Obama on Monday to scrap the health care bill and start over.
In an interview with CNBC, Buffett said the current bill does not focus on controlling costs, which he sees as the central problem that must be addressed to reform the system. He added that while he does not like the Senate bill, he'd vote for it in preference to doing nothing.
"What we have now is untenable over time," said Buffett, an early supporter of Obama's candidacy. "That kind of a cost compared to the rest of the world is really like a tapeworm eating, you know, at our economic body."
If the Obama Administration is starting to feel like the movie, "Groundhog Day," you're not far off. After wasting an entire year pushing a government takeover of health care that the majority of Americans oppose, Barack Obama is still peddling the same snake oil.
From Investor's Business Daily:
Health Reform: The linchpin of ObamaCare 2.0 is that 31 million uninsured will be covered at little added cost. But in fact, White House estimates for low costs are based on little more than accounting tricks.
The president's plan "puts our budget and economy on a more stable path by reducing the deficit by $100 billion over the next 10 years — and about $1 trillion over the second decade — by cutting government overspending and reining in waste, fraud and abuse," the White House says on its Web site.
Sound too good to be true? It is.
None of the numbers can be believed. The plan is a result of blatantly dishonest accounting for the real costs of the program, while grossly overstating its benefits. Americans should know the actual 10-year cost is closer to $2 trillion over 10 years, not the $950 billion claimed, when all the actual costs are toted up.
How can there be such a wide gap? Mainly because the president's plan doesn't provide benefits until the second half of the first decade. So it pretends that it will "only" cost $950 billion. But once the program kicks in, the full 10-year cost of benefits will be included — at a real current cost of $2 trillion or more.
Or, as columnist Charles Krauthammer, himself a trained physician, told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly: "It's a trick. The way the Democrats got under (the spending limit imposed by Obama) was by making 98% of the expenditures, the benefits that you and I would get under the bill, occur in the second half of the decade."
U.S. Rep. Jim Gerlach (PA-6th District) issued the following statement Monday after the White House outlined its health care reform proposal that the American people have already rejected:
"After the House and Senate crafted legislation in secret last year, the American people demanded a second opinion on health care reform," Gerlach said. "But the White House proposal offers the same $1 trillion prescription that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have been trying unsuccessfully to get the American people to swallow.
"While I am pleased the President has proposed removing the sweetheart deal known as the 'Cornhusker Kickback' for Nebraska, it is disappointing that higher taxes and more invasive government remain the backbone of this plan," Gerlach added. "Workers would pay a new tax on employer-provided health insurance and payroll taxes would climb under the White House plan. The constituents in my district – along with most Americans -- have made it clear that approach is unacceptable."
The New York Times reported that under the White House plan, a family earning about $88,000 a year would pay as much as 9.5 percent of their income toward annual health insurance premiums, or about $8,380 annually. That does not include out-of-pocket costs, such as co-payments or deductibles, according to the paper. And The Morning Call of Allentown cited a statewide poll showing 60 percent of Pennsylvanians want to scrap the House and Senate proposals and consider alternatives. In addition, a majority do not support the government requiring every citizen to buy health insurance.
Gerlach is a co-sponsor of a bipartisan proposal – known as the Small Business Options Health (SHOP) Act – that would increase competition among insurers by allowing consumers to purchase policies across state lines and permitting small businesses to form statewide pools to buy coverage for their employees.
Gerlach also supports the House Republican Medical Rights and Reform Act, which includes provisions to end costly lawsuit abuse and allows doctors and patients to continuing making decisions about the best treatments.
The Wall Street Journal believes Barack Obama can salvage what's left of his failed presidency by listening to the American people instead of the "Democratic delusionists" who have been advising him over the past year.
Tuesday's stunning victory by Republican Scott Brown, which the newspaper calls a "historic election rebuke," was a clear signal that the majority of Americans want Obama to rethink most of his policies, especially government-run health care.
From the editorial:
Yesterday's vote wasn't a repudiation of Mr. Obama's Presidency, or at least it needn't be. The President remains more popular than his policies, and voters want him to succeed. But they are also telling him he needs to steer a more moderate, less partisan course, returning to the pragmatism and comity that shaped his political rise but have vanished in his first, squandered year.
Pat Toomey, who is seeking the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania, issued a statement Tuesday night saying the victory by the GOP's Scott Brown in Massachusetts is a repudiation of the Obamacare bill being negotiated in secret by Congressional Democrats.
From Toomey's statement:
Tonight, voters in Massachusetts made their voices heard. In one of the most Democratic states in the country, voters elected Republican Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate in a demonstration of their opposition to one-Party Democratic rule in Washington and the nearly $1 trillion health care monstrosity the Democrats are trying to ram through Congress.
Voters want health care reform but they are fed up with the bill being pushed by President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Leader Harry Reid. That 2,000-page bill includes $500 billion in new taxes, a catalogue of Washington mandates and takeovers, a parade of sweetheart deals for individual politicians and special interests, and nothing to bring down premiums for average American families.
Now the one-Party-rule Democrats are talking about circumventing the normal congressional process, either by having the House accept the Senate version of the bill, or stalling Scott Brown’s swearing in. Yet even Democratic leaders like former Vermont Governor and Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean admit that Harry Reid's Senate bill does not move the country forward. Dean recently called the Senate bill, "a bigger bailout for the insurance industry than AIG." (ABC News, 12/16/09)
"Everyone can agree that we need real health care reform in this country," U.S. Senate candidate Pat Toomey said, "but it is clear that Americans all across the country are rejecting the Democrats' sweetheart deals, tax hikes, and massive spending. It is time to start over and begin the process of working on bipartisan, commonsense health care reform that brings real competition to the health insurance market and lowers the cost of care."
Toomey says it's time to start over and enact health care reforms that bring down medical costs without growing government.
Last November, Toomey wrote an op-ed urging bipartisan health care reform. He proposed commonsense solutions like eliminating the unfair discrimination against individually purchased health insurance in our tax code, allowing people to buy insurance across state lines, implementing reasonable tort reform, and allowing small businesses and organizations to band together and form health associations.
"I urge the Democrats to put aside their partisan determination to ram a $1 trillion bill through Congress that a majority of Americans oppose," Toomey added. "Now, is the time to implement reforms that will truly help people afford health care, without breaking the bank in Washington."
The future of Obamacare and the entire Obama Administration could hinge on the results of Tuesday's special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat from Massachusetts, says House GOP Leader John Boehner.
From POLITICO:
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) predicted “the end of the Obama agenda” if health care reform does not pass — and he says Massachusetts can help usher in this demise by supporting Republican Scott Brown.
"If this health care reform bill doesn't pass, it is the end of the Obama agenda," Boehner told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham on Monday morning. "It's pretty clear that they're going to use every trick imaginable ... to shove this down the throats of the American people."
Boehner, who has contributed to Brown’s campaign, said he is hopeful for a victory Tuesday in the traditional Democratic stronghold but wary that congressional leadership will push the health care bill regardless of the electoral results.
On the eve of the special election, Boehner called Brown a "great candidate with a real chance to win," yet the minority leader was in lockstep with his party's message when he framed the election as more of a repudiation of the Democrats than a statement on the candidate himself.
"I have no doubt that the people of Massachusetts are looking at this race as a way to send Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama a message to stop this spending," Boehner said. "We can continue to put pressure on them, exploit those differences and bring this bill down.
"This is not about political points," Boehner continued. "Our members are adamantly opposed to the government taking over control of our health system."
Newspaper: Shed light on Democrats' shady backroom deal
Here's some of what Investor's Business Daily has to say about the Democrats' intention to negotiate the final version of Obamacare behind closed doors:
Bypassing a conference committee also cuts out a public that will suffer losses from whatever monstrosity is produced by the cover of darkness. Americans stand to lose their power of choice over health care decisions and be stripped of a significant portion of their earnings to pay for a plan most don't want. They deserve to see in an open forum what is being done to them. Instead, they're likely to get whatever the Democrats want to force on them.
Without sunlight to disinfect the sordid mess, the public option could be quietly slipped into the final bill. Committee members could set the taxes on high-end insurance plans at an excessively punitive rate. The mandates placed on private insurance companies could drive many out of business and make premiums unaffordable to millions.
A long list of harmful ideas exists that could be tacked onto the bill, and few of us would know about them. Without a conference committee, the rule that requires the conference report to be publicly available for at least 48 hours before a vote would not apply.
In the 2006 and 2008 elections, Democrats gave their word that under their care, government would have superior transparency. In August 2008, while campaigning for the presidency, Barack Obama made a similar pledge, saying he would hold health care legislation talks in the open "around a big table."
"We'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN," Obama said, as he was "going to allow people to stay involved in this process."
Earlier in the year, the president repudiated "negotiating behind closed doors" and vowed to bring "all parties together" and broadcast "those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process."
Despite those promises, C-SPAN's offer to televise the negotiations in their entirety has not been accepted.
Corbett, 12 other AGs threaten lawsuit against Obamacare
Could the U.S. Supreme Court end up deciding the fate of Obamacare?
Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett and 12 other Republican attorney generals have threatened a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Senate health care bill.
From POLITICO:
In a letter sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Wednesday, South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster said he had "grave concerns" about the deal Senate leaders cut with Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson to secure his crucial vote for the health care package.
"The current iteration of the bill contains a provision that affords special treatment to the state of Nebraska under the federal Medicaid program," writes McMaster. "We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed. As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision."
"In addition to violating the most basic and universally held notions of what is fair and just, we also believe this provision of H.R. 3590 is inconsistent with protections afforded by the United States Constitution against arbitrary legislation," writes McMaster.
If Democrats are doing something good for the country, why did the party bosses have to spend so much taxpayer money to bribe Democratic members of Congress into voting for the "health care reform" bill? Just wondering.
FRC on the Christmas Eve Passage of the Health Care 'Reform' Bill
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments on the passage by Senate Democrats of the so-called "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act --
"Today's Christmas Eve vote may signal the end of the debate in the Senate, but it's far from the end of the debate at large. Since Senator Reid's bad bill is substantially different from the House's bad bill, the lower chamber will have to vote on the plan again. The Senate bill's massive funding for elective abortions and the construction of abortion facilities are among the most radical differences. On Monday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius admitted in an interview that the Senate health care bill will force 'everybody' in the exchange to pay an abortion premium. The so-called Nelson 'compromise' ensures that everyone will pay for abortion--no matter how the funds are divided up.
"According to a new Quinnipiac poll, Americans -- by a huge three to one margin -- are overwhelmingly opposed to using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. Seventy-two percent of the country is now firmly on the side of Congressman Bart Stupak's (D-Mich.) solution to ban the government's financial involvement in the deadly procedure. House and Senate conferees would do well to heed that warning when they come together to iron out their differences with the final bill, else this bill could collapse because of it.
"Disagreement over abortion funding is one of the many reasons this fight is far from over. Both House and Senate versions of the bill are seriously flawed. Both bills still allow rationing of health care for seniors, raise health costs for families, mandate that families purchase under threat of fines and penalties, offer counsel about assisted suicide in some states, do not offer broad conscience protections for health care workers and seek to insert the federal government into all aspects of citizen's lives. Additionally, the bills would place a crushing debt on both current and future generations."
Who you gonna trust with your family's health care? Harry Reid and Barack Obama or your doctor?
More than 500,000 U.S. doctors oppose the Obamacare bill about to be rammed through the U.S. Senate.
From TakeBackMedicine.org:
To date 43 state, county and national medical societies, representing nearly one‐half million physicians, have stated their public opposition to the Senate healthcare overhaul bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590). It is time for Congress to slow down, take a step back, and change the direction of current reform efforts to ensure that it is done right!
Gerlach: Health Care Bill Brings Blizzard of Spending, No Real Reforms
U.S. Rep. Jim Gerlach (PA-6th District) issued the following statement in response to the U.S. Senate's rush to pass a health care bill before Christmas:
"While Mother Nature was dumping a record-setting amount of snow on southeastern Pennsylvania this weekend, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his Democrat leadership colleagues unleashed a blizzard of taxpayer dollars in a frantic attempt to pass a health care bill that has more to do with scoring political points than making insurance affordable and improving the quality of health care. And American taxpayers will be paying for these deals aimed at paving the path to government-controlled health care long after the snow melts.
"After promising Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu $300 million in taxpayer dollars last month in exchange for her vote, Reid struck backroom deals that will force Pennsylvania taxpayers to help finance a $1.1 billion Medicaid bailout over the next 10 years for Nebraska, Massachusetts and Vermont. That is in addition to an estimated $2.2 billion Pennsylvania taxpayers will have to cover during the next decade if the Democrats’ health care proposal becomes law. Reid also slipped in a $100 million earmark for an unidentified hospital in an unidentified state to build a new facility.
"This avalanche of spending would be bad enough. But the Senate bill also retains the same job-crushing taxes and big government bureaucracy contained in the House health care bill, which I voted against on November 7. Taxes would climb by about $400 billion per year. That includes a $2 billion per year tax on medical testing products that help detect ovarian, breast and pancreatic cancer; products used in hip-replacement surgery and to help patients heal broken limbs; heart stents used in life-saving operations; and other medical devices. This tax would hit Pennsylvania particularly hard because of the approximately 600 medical device manufactures in the Commonwealth that employ roughly 20,000 people in jobs that often pay more than $50,000 per year.
"All of this taxing and spending will result in a bill that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirmed would raise health insurance premiums by $300 per year for individuals and $2,100 per year for middle-class families. That’s unacceptable.
"Rather than buying votes, leaders in the House and Senate should be working on medical malpractice reforms that could save patients up to $140 billion per year and other bipartisan measures that would increase competition among private insurers to lower the cost of premiums and give consumers greater freedom and choices in buying coverage. I will continue working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to achieve these goals."
Obamacare Will Shut Down Physician-Owned Hospitals
What the Democrats aren't telling you about the consequences of Obamacare: Projected loss of more than 70,000 jobs, more than $5 billion lost in state and local economic activity, according to a new report released by Physician Hospitals of America.
Syndicated columnist and liberal icon Nat Hentoff plans to publish a three-part series on the many troubling aspects of Obamacare. Hentoff is scared to death about a government takeover of health care and says you should be too.
The highlights below are from his first column, "Be scared: Obamacare endangers Americans' lifespans"
Hentoff writes:
Much of the press coverage of the Democrats' health-care legislation, now fiercely embattled in Congress, focuses on the public option, the actual long-term costs and tax increases, and the amendment barring funding for abortions, but the cold heart of Obamacare is its overpowering of the doctor-patient relationship — eventually resulting in the premature ending of many Americans' lives for being too costly.
To call the dangers of this legislation "death panels" obscures the real-life consequences to Americans, not only the elderly, of a federal government-run health-care bureaucracy. In the Senate bill, for instance, Medicare doctors whose treatments of certain, mostly elderly, patients costs more than a set government figure each year, will be punished by losing part of their own incomes.
Is this what presidential candidate Barack Obama meant by "Change we can believe in?" Even if you voted for him, is this the change you will believe in if your doctor is overruled by the government in his or her treatment decisions about you?
Remember those federal bureaucrats recently ruling on breast cancer screening? Dr. James Thrall, chairman of the American College of Radiology and a Harvard Medical School professor, said the resulting furor of dissent by doctors showed (Wall Street Journal, Nov. 18) that rulings "based on costs and large group averages, not individuals" lead him to fear that, "we are entering an era of deliberate decisions where we choose to trade people’s lives for money."
Is there anything you want to say to your representatives in the House or Senate before the final vote is taken? If you don't act urgently now, you may become part of another collective statistic — American annual death rates.
I'm scared, and I do mean to scare you.
We do not elect the president and Congress to decide how short our lives will be. That decision is way above their pay grades.
Small Business Healthy, a project of The Institute for Liberty, today announced a new $1 million four-state TV ad campaign targeting Senators on the effects of the current health care legislation on small business owners and how it would ultimately cost jobs.
The ads will target Senator Lincoln (D-AR), Senator Landrieu (D-LA), Senator Nelson (D-NE), Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Senator Conrad (D-ND).
"Small businesses drive our economy. Unemployment is at a 25 year high. Yet the White House and Congress continue to ignore the devastating consequences this health care reform legislation will have on small business," said Andrew Langer, KSBH President. "I've got an idea for the jobs summit; stop proposing legislation that will devastate small business and lead to higher unemployment."
Health Care Provisions Still Soft on Illegal Aliens
The bottom line: Under the Democrats' plan, you'll pay higher health insurance premiums so the government can provide health care to illegal aliens. Be sure to thank Sens. Specter and Casey.
When supporters of Obamacare tell you the massive government takeover of health care is "revenue neutral," it just means they've figure out a way to hide the fact that you will get hammered with new taxes to pay for it.
From the latest column by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann:
While Obama has been at great pains to make a show of avoiding taxes on the middle class to pay for his health care changes, his proposed increase in Medicaid eligibility will have a huge impact on the 39 states whose income cutoffs for the program are below those required in the new federal legislation.
All states except for Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont and Wisconsin (plus the District of Colombia) will have to raise their eligibility for Medicaid under the Senate health care bill. And they will have to pay for part of the cost. Under the House bill, with a higher Medicaid eligibility standard, Massachusetts and Vermont would also have to pay more.
The magnitude of the new Medicaid spending required by Obamacare is such as to transform the nature of state finances. A large part of the reason that some states, particularly in the South, have been able to avoid higher taxes is because they have chosen to keep down the Medicaid eligibility level.
Pennsylvania taxpayers will have to come up with $1.7 billion in additional revenues to make up for the costs of Obamacare should it pass, according to Morris' analysis of the current health care bills being debated by Democrats.
Read the full column, "Obamacare To Hike State Taxes," at Townhall.com
The latest Rasmussen Reports poll has 41% of Americans supporting the Democrats' health care legislation, but 53% opposed to it. So, of course, Congressional Democrats will push ahead with an ill-conceived plan that will add to the national debt, increase the federal bureaucracy, raise taxes and kill jobs.
From Rasmussen:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of voters nationwide favor the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. Fifty-three percent (53%) are opposed to it. Those figures include 22% who Strongly Favor the plan and 40% who are Strongly Opposed.
Support for the legislation is up three percentage points from a week ago. However, last week's results were the lowest level of support ever recorded for the plan. With the exception of a few days following nationally televised presidential appeals for the legislation, the number of voters opposed to the plan has always exceeded the number who favor it.
While advocates say the plan is needed to control the cost of health care, 56% of voters now say it will have the opposite impact and push prices even higher. Just 17% believe passage of the plan will lead to lower costs.
Fifty percent (50%) believe passage of the legislation will lead to a lower quality of care while just 18% believe the care will get better.
As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid leads the Democratic Party to its Waterloo, a new Rasmussen poll shows just 38% of voters favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats.
That's the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June by Rasmussen Reports.
The latest Rasmussen Reports survey finds that 56% oppose the plan a clear majority and a warning to Democrats that their control of Congress will likely slip away in 2010 as they continue to push their big government higher taxes agenda.
From Rasmussen Reports:
Half the survey was conducted before the Senate voted late Saturday to begin debate on its version of the legislation. Support for the plan was slightly lower in the half of the survey conducted after the Senate vote.
Prior to this, support for the plan had never fallen below 41%. Last week, support for the plan was at 47%. Two weeks ago, the effort was supported by 45% of voters.
Intensity remains stronger among those who oppose the push to change the nation's health care system: 21% Strongly Favor the plan while 43% are Strongly Opposed.
Rasmussen Reports is continuing to track public opinion on the health care plan on a weekly basis. Next week's Monday morning update will give an indication of whether these numbers reflect a trend of growing opposition or are merely statistical noise.
Only 16% now believe passage of the plan will lead to lower health care costs. Nearly four times as many (60%) believe the plan will increase health care costs. Most (54%) also believe passage of the plan will hurt the quality of care.
As has been the case for months, Democrats favor the plan while Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party are opposed. The latest numbers show support from 73% of those in the president's party. The plan is opposed by 83% of Republicans and 70% of unaffiliated voters.
Remember all the grief former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin received from the liberal media when she pointed out that the health care reform bills pushed by Democrats included provisions for the so-called "death panels" to advise elderly Americans on alternatives to medical treatment after they reach a certain age?
Guess what? Sarah Palin was right. The House bill touted by Nancy Pelosi includes end-of-life counseling by government-sponsored "death panels."
From The Associated Press:
It's alive! End-of-life counseling in health bill
WASHINGTON (AP) — It's alive.
The Medicare end-of-life planning provision that 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin said was tantamount to "death panels" for seniors is staying in the latest Democratic health care bill unveiled Thursday.
The provision allows Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries deal with the complex and painful decisions families face when a loved one is approaching death.
For years, federal laws and policies have encouraged Americans to think ahead about end-of-life decisions, and make their wishes known in advance through living wills and similar legal documents. But when House Democrats proposed this summer to pay doctors for end-of-life counseling, it touched off a wave of suspicion and anger.
Prominent Republicans singled it out as a glaring example of government overreach. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, at the time a lead negotiator on health care legislation, told constituents at a town hall meeting they had good reason to question the proposal.
"I don't have any problem with things like living wills, but they ought to be done within the family," he said. "We should not have a government program that determines you're going to pull the plug on grandma."
Pew Analysis Shows Amtrak Lost $32 Per Passenger in 2008
This is what happens when government runs a railroad. It loses money. And Obama/Pelosi want the government to take over the health care system. Guess what's going to happen.
Consumer Watchdog lists Top 5 health care 'time bombs'
"If this bill becomes law, consumers will find themselves still at the absolute mercy of private insurance companies," said Judy Dugan, research director of Consumer Watchdog. "Premiums and co-pays will be uncontrolled, even as patient rights are eliminated. Congress must stand up to the corporate lobbies and add better consumer protections, or pay the price in voter anger at being stuck with a bait-and-switch reform."
Consumer Watchdog said the proposal's top 5 health time bombs are:
* Elimination of a public health insurance option; * Evasion of state patient-rights laws; * Weak "employer mandate;" * Omission of price regulation of insurance; * Lack of recourse to hold insurers accountable.
On Tuesday, October 6th, Patients First is sponsoring a National Call Congress Day to send our legislators a simple message: "Hands Off My Health Care!"
This is your chance to explain why we cannot afford any bill that puts Washington between you and your doctor. Call Congress and tell them: "Hands Off My Health Care."
Tax: A Required Contribution or Fee Levied by a Government
George Stephanopoulos, former senior advisor to Bill Clinton, on ABC's "This Week" grilled the President on how his health care overhaul would raise taxes on the middle class.
The President tried to dance around the issue -- just as he has done on numerous occasions regarding abortion funding in the health care bill. However, he can't dance away from this fact, either.
Politico reports today that page 29 of the bill introduced Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont), says: "The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax."
President Obama has developed a serious credibility problem as Factcheck.org, Politifact.com, and now Politico have reported on the President's misleading statements on his health care bill.
However, the American people can't be misled so easily. They instinctively know that imposing new taxes or involuntary payments (mandates) combined with massive spending will only further burden families and the next generation of Americans.
Columnist: 10 More 'You Lie' Moments On Health Care
South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson was taken to the woodshed by Congressional Democrats for his "You Lie!" outburst during Barack Obama's recent speech on health care, but what the liberal media is failing to focus on is the fact that Wilson was telling the truth. Obama is lying about his government-run plan.
In fact, Obama told at least 10 lies during his speech, according to columnist John Hawkins.
From his column:
Unfortunately, this sort of deception has been the rule, not the exception in the Democrats' health care push. In fact, Barack Obama has sold health care by saying, in effect, "Anybody who has anything negative to say about health care reform is just spreading myths."
It's a shame that Barack Obama has chosen to go this way, because our health care system does desperately need to be reformed and conservatives would be very willing to work with the Democrats to do it. In fact, in a recent poll of 74 conservative bloggers, every single one of them said that they'd be "willing to support health care reform that primarily emphasized market based reforms." If Obama were to take that approach or even if he were to simply focus on helping the 8-10 million Americans who want health insurance but can't afford it, I suspect he'd have no trouble at all getting strong bipartisan support for a bill.
Here is the list compiled by Hawkins:
1. The President is working with Republicans. 2. Republicans haven't suggested a plan for health care. 3. The public option won't put the insurance industry out of business and lead to a government takeover of health care. 4. Medicare won't be cut to fund this health care bill. 5. The health care plan won't add "one dime to our deficits either now or in the future." 6. Preventative care will be required in these bills and it'll save money. 7. Health care reform will help create more jobs. 8. Abortion won't be covered under the bill. 9. This bill won't lead to rationing of health care and people being denied life saving operations. 10. Obama's "Plan" doesn't have these problems you're talking about.
Read "10 More 'You Lie' Moments On Health Care" at Townhall.com
I was pleasantly surprised with The Associated Press' coverage of the March on Washington on Saturday, Sept. 12. The wire service, which largely ignored the Tea Parties throughout the year, moved a lengthy article and more than a dozen photographers of the protest. Also, it did not downplay the turnout, putting right there in the lead that "tens of thousands" of Americans marched against Obama and his big government schemes. You can read the AP story and view photos of the event at The Mercury's Web site.
A day after an Associated Press poll shows 52 percent of Americans opposed to Obamacare, a Rasmussen Reports poll finds 53 percent of Americans oppose the Democrat Party-backed government takeover of health care.
The poll was conducted before Barack Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress, but the speech is unlikely to change many people's position on the matter.
From Rasmussen Reports:
Views of the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats remain largely unchanged since late July. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey conducted Tuesday and Wednesday nights finds that 44% favor the plan while 53% are opposed. These numbers are little different than those in late August.
However, the overwhelmingly majority of interviews for the new survey were conducted before the president’s speech to Congress Wednesday night. Rasmussen Reports will be tracking support for the proposals on a daily basis over the next several days to measure what impact the speech has on public opinion.
The survey results are very similar to earlier data with perhaps a very slight uptick for the president’s team. Twenty-seven percent (27%) now Strongly Favor the plan and 41% Strongly Oppose. In August, those numbers were 23% and 43% respectively.
This is the fourth time in the last five surveys that 53% have registered opposition to the plan. The lone exception came following a nationally televised press conference the president held in part to promote the plan when opposition dropped temporarily to 49%
The partisan dynamics remain the same as in earlier surveys. While 72% of Democrats favor the health care plan, 81% of Republicans oppose it. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 39% favor the legislative effort while 58% are opposed.
Republican Party of Pennsylvania Chairman Rob Gleason issued the following statement about President Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress:
"President Obama made another desperate attempt to pitch his plan for government-run, taxpayer-funded health care plan, the same plan that Americans have soundly rejected," Gleason said. "The President's speech was nothing short of a 'Hail Mary' pass made in an attempt to salvage a costly big government health care plan that most Americans do not want.
"The President's speech was short on details, and his assertion that the government can provide cheaper health care to more people than the current system without increasing the national deficit does not pass the smell test.
"Over the summer, Pennsylvanians made clear that they saw through the president's rhetoric and did not want to see a government takeover of their health care. I call on President Obama to listen to those concerns by ending his pursuit of big government programs and reach across the aisle to find solutions based on the same free market principles our country was founded upon."
'Obama is Wrong: Health Care Plan Includes Abortion Funding'
The Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation wants to set the record straight about claims by Barack Obama that his health-care reform plan does not cover taxpayer-funded abortions.
The group issued the following release in response to statements Obama made during a nationally televised address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday:
President Barack Obama is misleading the American public by claiming that no federal dollars will be used to pay for abortions under his health care reform plan.
"It's time to stop playing word games," said Michael Ciccocioppo, Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation, the state’s largest pro-life organization. "The House plan which Obama backs would authorize the federal insurance plan to pay for abortions. It would also mean federal subsidies for private abortion insurance. Federal funding of abortion is clearly part of the House health care plan," Ciccocioppo added.
For decades, the Hyde Amendment, named for the late pro-life Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois, has prevented federal funding for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. However, the Hyde Amendment would not apply to the health care plan, since the amendment only applies to funds appropriated through the annual Health and Human Services appropriations bill. Health care reform would not be paid for out of that appropriations bill, so the Hyde Amendment would not be applicable.
"Unless abortion is specifically excluded from the health care reform plan, federal funding of abortions will occur—something that national public opinion polls show that the vast majority of Americans oppose," Ciccocioppo said.
As Barack Obama attempts to salvage some form of health care reform with a prime time speech to a joint session of Congress, a new Associated Press-GfK poll says 52 of Americans oppose Obamacare.
The poll also finds Obama's job approval numbers heading south.
From The Associated Press:
With his health revamp moving slowly and unemployment edging ever higher, Obama's overall approval rating has also suffered a blow. The survey showed that 49 percent now disapprove of how he is handling his job as president, up from 42 percent who disapproved in July.
The grade people give Obama on health care also has worsened since July, when just 43 percent disapproved of his work on the issue.
The poll underscores how the president has struggled to win public support to reshape the nation's $2.5 trillion health care system and to put the brakes on a deep recession.
Forty-nine percent say they oppose the health overhaul plans being considered by Congress, compared to just 34 percent who favor them.
Obama's marks are also poor on the economy, with 52 percent saying they disapprove of how he's handled that issue.
A similar number disapprove of his handling of taxes, some of which may rise to help finance his health overhaul. And 56 percent dislike his handling of the budget deficit, which has skyrocketed under the costs of the financial bailouts and a recession that has caused sinking federal revenues.
The 900-pound gorilla in the health care reform debate appears to be the trial lawyers. Obama and Congress won't touch them. How many trial lawyers have bankrolled Congressional Democrats and members of the Obama Administration?
More than 1,000 physicians from all 50 states will converge on the Capitol in scrubs and lab coats this week to bring an angry message to Congress: "Stop meddling in medicine!"
The doctors, all traveling as individuals and at their own expense, will hold a rally at the Capitol, lobby their Members of Congress, and meet with the doctors of Congress, including Tom Price, M.D., of Georgia and Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.
The event, co-sponsored by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) and Tea Party Patriots, was prompted by the American Medical Association's misguided endorsement of House Bill HR 3200, a bill that would turn more control over to the government, rather than restore it to patients and doctors.
Ann Coulter: Liberal Lies About National Health Care, Part 2
Best-selling author and columnist Ann Coulter has launched a series of columns exposing "Liberal Lies About National Health Care."
The first part covered five major lies:
(1) National health care will punish the insurance companies. 2) National health care will "increase competition and keep insurance companies honest" -- as President Barack Obama has said. (3) Insurance companies are denying legitimate claims because they are "villains." (4) National health care will give Americans "basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable" -- as Barack Obama claimed in his op/ed in the Times. (5) Government intervention is the only way to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Hmmm ... Two struggling television networks won't accept money to air an advertisement critical of Obamacare. And I thought they were in business to make money. Didn't ABC give Obama free air time to promote his government-run plan? Just keep telling yourself there's no liberal bias in the media.
John C. Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, offers an excellent analysis of the growing anger exhibited by Americans toward the political class in Washington.
From his recent column in The Wall Street Journal:
Why are they so angry? The reasons are manifold, but the single biggest reason is the arrogance of our elected officials in Washington. Think about it. For the past seven months a small group of politicians has been meeting behind-closed-doors with powerful special interests to decide whether you will be able to keep your current insurance, where you will be directed to get new insurance and at what price, what fines you and your employer will have to pay if you don't conform, and how they're going to get your doctor to change the way he or she practices medicine. In the process, they never asked you what you thought about anything. If you are not mad about this, odds are you don't understand the situation.
Watch this video and see if you notice the difference between the professionally printed "official" pro-ObamaCare signs and the homemade unofficial anti-ObamaCare signs.
Nat Hentoff is the kind of hard-core liberal who should have no problem embracing Obamcare. But unlike most members of Congress, Hentoff has read the various provisions in Obamacare ... and he's scared to death about a government takeover of our health care system.
Keep in mind that we're not talking about Glenn Beck here. This is Nat Hentoff, liberal icon, champion of left-wing causes for decades.
Excerpts from a recent Hentoff's column on Obamacare:
I was not intimidated during J. Edgar Hoover's FBI hunt for reporters like me who criticized him. I railed against the Bush-Cheney war on the Bill of Rights without blinking. But now I am finally scared of a White House administration. President Obama's desired health care reform intends that a federal board (similar to the British model) — as in the Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation in a current Democratic bill — decides whether your quality of life, regardless of your political party, merits government-controlled funds to keep you alive. Watch for that life-decider in the final bill. It's already in the stimulus bill signed into law.
No matter what Congress does when it returns from its recess, rationing is a basic part of Obama's eventual master health care plan.
This end-of-life consultation has been stripped from the Senate Finance Committee bill because of democracy-in-action town-hall outcries but remains in three House bills. A specific end-of-life proposal is in draft Section 1233 of H.R. 3200, a House Democratic health care bill that is echoed in two others that also call for versions of "advance care planning consultation" every five years — or sooner if the patient is diagnosed with a progressive or terminal illness.
Who'll let us know what's really being decided about our lives — and what is set into law?
Condemning the furor at town-hall meetings around the country as "un-American," Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are blind to truly participatory democracy — as many individual Americans believe they are fighting, quite literally, for their lives.
I wonder whether Obama would be so willing to promote such health care initiatives if, say, it were 60 years from now, when his children will — as some of the current bills seem to imply — have lived their fill of life years, and the health care resources will then be going to the younger Americans?
Read Hentoff's full column, "Will Obama, Congress decide when you die?" at The Mercury's Web site.
Tony Phyrillas is the city editor and political columnist for The Mercury, a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning daily newspaper in Pottstown, Pa. Phyrillas has won several national and state awards for his columns. Phyrillas has been featured on National Public Radio (NPR) and in The New York Times and is a frequent commentator on radio and television programs. He co-hosted "Talking Politics with Tony Phyrillas & Mike Pincus" on WPAZ 1370 AM.
RSS
Links to this post
