Archive for the ‘Health Takeover’ Category
Health Care in Critical Condition
Health Care in Critical Condition
It’s Thanksgiving week on Capitol Hill, and it looks like the turkeys have fled D.C. for their home states. Their departure followed a tough vote on Saturday night, in which the Senate officially agreed to move forward with Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) joke of a health care bill. By strict party lines (60-39), the Democrats voted against the American people to railroad their $2.5 trillion legislation to the Senate floor, where debate is expected to begin as early as November 30. Although a handful of Democrats seemed to be teetering on the edge heading into the weekend, others waited until Sen. Harry Reid sweetened the pot until they committed to vote his way.
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who was leaning "no" on the motion as recently as last week, held out so that she could extract a high price for her support–$300 million, to be exact. Sen. Reid’s "Louisiana Purchase" proved to be the clincher, along with eleventh hour commitments from "pro-life" Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Nebr.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.), who both voted to advance a bill that specifically funds abortion in at least two new government programs. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) was one of several Republicans who made passionate pleas from the Senate floor. "It’s arrogant to dump 15 million low-income Americans into a medical ghetto… that none of us or any of our families would ever want to join.
It’s arrogant to send to the states, which are going broke, a big chunk of the bill. It’s arrogant to tell the American people that the bill will only cost $849 billion and think they’re not smart enough to… figure out that it will actually cost $2.5 trillion…" Others like Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Sam Brownback (R-Kans.), and Mike Johanns (R-Nebr.) made it abundantly clear that voting to proceed meant voting to proceed with federally-funded abortion. Instead of adding the popular Stupak-Pitts language that a bipartisan majority endorsed in the House, Sen. Reid included a provision that expands–not excludes–taxpayer-funded abortion.
To understand the damage that his language could do, check out FRC’s comparison of the Stupak amendment with Sen. Reid’s abortion provisions. There is still time to change the language, but it will take persistence on everyone’s part. One way you can help is to call, email, and visit your Senators’ offices over the Thanksgiving break. If your Senators happen to be Republican, contact them anyway and encourage them to keep fighting. If you live in Maine, where it’s tough to know what the party loyalties are, push harder.
Bo-Tax? Reid’s New Nip/Tuck Tariff
President Obama campaigned on the promise that he wouldn’t raise income tax on anyone earning more than $250,000 a year. Since his election, the President has even repeated his pledge. While some say he has already broken that promise by raising taxes on cigarettes by over 200 percent, anyone getting a nose job will feel like they are getting a snow job as well. Section 9017 of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) ill-named " Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" adds a tax on cosmetic surgery procedures: There is hereby imposed on any cosmetic surgery and medical procedure a tax equal to 5 percent of the amount paid for such procedure (determined without regard to this section), whether paid by insurance or otherwise. There’s no incom e limit or floor that would exempt people from this tax. Not surprisingly, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Vice President Joe Biden have been silent on the new levy.
NARTH: Debunking the Lies
"Together, we must continue to proclaim the truth–because there remain many men and women who need that truth to set them free." That was the message delivered on Friday by FRC’s Peter Sprigg in an address to the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). NARTH is a scientific organization which defends the right to seek psychological care for unwanted homosexual attractions, and the right of therapists to provide care directed at changing a person’s sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual if the client desires it. Unfortunately, these freedoms are under attack by homosexual activists who seek to persuade people that change is impossible, that efforts to change are harmful, and that homosexuality is harmless.
NARTH has produced an outstanding new resource, the first volume of its Journal of Human Sexuality, which thoroughly debunks all three of these claims by proving that changing is possible, change efforts are not harmful, and that homosexually active people suffer higher rates of many pathologies. Peter linked these findings to the public policy debates on homosexuality, pointing out that since homosexual conduct is not inborn, involuntary, immutable, or innocuous, it should not be treated like race or sex. Research alone may not settle these debates–but we should be highly skeptical of the homosexual movement, because it rests on a foundation of lies.
In case you had any doubt that liberals don’t get it when it comes to health care reform
|
From the diaries by Erick. This article from Colorado (h/t Drudge) should end any lingering doubts. Let’s compare what the insurance execs claim… Their concern: People will buy insurance only when they desperately need it, such as after they’re diagnosed with cancer or heart disease. Healthy people might choose to pay the penalty, now proposed at a few hundred dollars per year, because it is far less expensive than buying insurance. Insurance companies, under that scenario, would end up spending more to treat patients than they would receive in premiums. Rates would rise even faster than they do now. “People would come in, pay premiums for a few months while they were getting their cancer treatments,” said John Martie, president and general manager of Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Colorado. “If enough people did that, the whole system would collapse. …vs what some moron on the left has to say about it. Reform advocates say it is farfetched to assume people who can’t afford insurance — and might qualify for government subsidies — would opt to pay a penalty instead. “They are assuming that people would game the system,” said Denise de Percin, executive director of the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative. “They are looking at the worst-case scenario. People aren’t stupid — they are not going to pay a penalty and get nothing,” de Percin said. Is she REALLY that stupid to believe what she’s saying here? Let’s say your choices are these: Under this setup, the only way people are stupid is if they DON’T “game” the system. It’s amazing how ignorant these fools are. People are 100x times smarter than they are. |
Snowe to vote ‘yes’ for Finance Committee healthcare reform bill
|
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) will vote to approve the Senate Finance Committee’s healthcare bill on Tuesday. |
Senate Finance Committee’s Health Care Legislation Coming to A Vote
|
The Senate Finance Committee was poised to approve sweeping legislation Tuesday requiring nearly all Americans to purchase insurance and ushering in a host of other changes to the nation’s medical system. |
Senator Grassley Exposes Stealth Changes by Democrats in Obamacare Bill
|
Earlier this week, the ranking member of the Senate Financial Services Committee which debated its version of Obamacare last month — the Democrats’ socialized medicine scheme, a $829 billion monstrosity — Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, accused the Democrats of making changes which are bad for America’s seniors, veterans and workers…. |
“Reform” Means You Pay More for Health Care
|
A major new report confirms the worst fears of many: Health care reform will raise the costs for most Americans—by about 18% on average. That is on top of existing inflation of health coverage. When combined with existing inflation, costs would rise from today’s $12,300 annual average to $25,900. Of that 111% increase, $9,600 is due to existing factors uncorrected by the legislation, and $4,000 due to additional costs created by the legislation. For single persons, the differential is projected at $1,500 a year. Premiums would rise from today’s $4,600 a year to $9,600 overall. Prepared by Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC), the new analysis was requested by AHIP—America’s Health Insurance Plans. It focuses on the leading plan pending in Congress, sponsored by Sen. Max Baucus (D, MT), which is scheduled for a Senate Finance Committee vote on Tuesday. The PWC report can be read here. The PWC projections track what The Heritage Foundation and many others have said about the legislation: It does not save money. It simply taxes those who have health coverage and uses the money to give care to others. The White House is said to be livid. After all, President Obama’s claims that he makes care more affordable are exposed as a myth by the new study. Lawmakers claim the bill would “save” money, but that’s not true for those who have insurance. The only “savings” would be to those who receive government-paid health care and subsidies at the cost of higher prices for everyone else. (Even if the legislation “reduced the deficit”, it would do so by making citizens pay more, not by controlling government spending.) Despite the enormous costs, estimates say 25-million people would remain uninsured under the Baucus bill. The new study also criticizes the Baucus plan for not placing tougher mandates and penalties on those who do not buy health insurance, which would help spread the costs (and create new customers for insurers). PWC reports higher costs would occur due to these parts of the bill:
The report will be denounced as a political attack by the insurance industry. But the real attack is Washington’s assault on our pocketbooks and our freedoms. |
Finance health vote will require a leap of faith for several senators
|
Several members of the Senate Finance Committee will have to make leaps of faith to approve a healthcare bill Tuesday. |
Insurers escalate criticism of health overhaul – AP
Insurers escalate criticism of health overhaulBy RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR (AP) WASHINGTON — The insurance industry sharply escalated its criticism of the Senate health care bill Sunday, charging that the legislation would shift costs to privately insured people, raising the price of a typical policy by hundreds — if not thousands — of dollars annually. A spokesman for Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., whose 10-year, $829 billion overhaul plan faces a final committee vote Tuesday, questioned the credibility of the late-innings cost estimate. “It’s a health insurance company hatchet job, plain and simple,” said Scott Mulhauser. Until recently, the health insurance industry has been working behind the scenes to shape legislation, while publicly endorsing President Barack Obama’s goal of affordable coverage for all Americans. The fragile alliance is growing strained as legislation advances toward floor votes in the House and Senate. Late Sunday, the industry trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans sent its member companies a new accounting firm study that projects the legislation would add $1,700 a year to the cost of family coverage in 2013, when most of the major provisions in the bill would be in effect. Premiums for a single person would go up by $600 more than would be the case without the legislation, the PriceWaterhouseCoopers analysis concluded. The study was commissioned by the insurance group. “Several major provisions in the current legislative proposal will cause health care costs to increase far faster and higher than they would under the current system,” Karen Ignagni, the top industry lobbyist in Washington, wrote in a memo to insurance company CEOs. The study projected that in 2019, family premiums could be $4,000 higher and individual premiums could be $1,500 higher. via The Associated Press: Insurers escalate criticism of health overhaul.
Read the original story at Snow Report Blog. |
Politico Outs the Secret Plan to Pass ObamaCare
|
Politico (again) breaks a major story this morning with its outing of the Dem secret plan that Brian Darling of the Heritage Foundation has been warning of for more than ten days: a former House and Senate leadership aide sent an email sketching out another route to passage. Instead of introducing a Senate bill, Majority Leader Reid could insert the merged health care reform language into a revenue raising House bill already languishing in conference committee. The Senate would pass it and send it to the House whereupon passage, it would go straight to the president’s desk – completely bypassing conference. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. By cutting out conference, this single-bullet scenario eliminates weeks of expected wrangling and would make it possible to pass a bill by the Thanksgiving target so many Democrats are aiming for. Many insiders agree that a conference committee would make that goal next to impossible. The Democrats are raping the Congressional process to pass ObamaCare: This is why the Founding Fathers warned of the tyranny of the majority. The U.S. Congress, under the Democrats, is being run like a banana republic where the dictator violates any and all fair processes with little regard for public opinion — that is, until the 2010 elections, where, if the Dems carry out these outrageous and flagrant flaunting follies they will have their heads handed to them. All of these flags-on-the-play violations to pass a bill that Zogby finds 60% of the American people oppose? Or if you prefer the Pew Poll version, only 34% of Americans support it. Really, the Dems need to take a breath, and seriously consider their politically irrational and lemming-like behavior. |
Health-care industry leaders shocked to find ObamaCare costs
|
The Washington Post reports on the oh-so-predictable disillusionment of the major players in the health-care industry over the direction of ObamaCare, especially over promises broken by a White House that has steadfastly refused to lead after suckering them into giveaways. [...] Read the rest » |
