The Health Care Vote Really Was Historic!!

The Liberals like to tell us that Sunday's vote on health care "reform" was historic. They are right.

Never before has the U.S. Congress voted on a bill so massive, so intrusive, that affects every person in the United States, all the while showing absolute contempt for the will of the American people and a total disdain for the voices of opposition.

Never before has Congress been so blatantly corrupt, so nakedly unashamed (and even proud!) of the backroom deals, bribery, threats, and extortion that were all required to get this bill passed by the slimmest of margins.

It was an historic event.

Hurricane Katrina was historic, too. As was 9/11, Pearl Harbor, Nixon's resignation, Clinton's impeachment, and the Mura building bombing.

Historic does not necessarily mean good for America.

With the health care "reform" bill, we saw an historic abdication of responsibility, an historic display of hubris and political self-gratification, an historic corruption of the American political process, and an historic shift in the government/populace relationship that might be forever damaged.

John Boehner was right, Democrats; you should be ashamed of yourselves.

I know I am ashamed of you.

If Repubs Filibuster, Obama Will Pass Health Reform Through Reconciliation

According to the Plum Line blog, if the Congressional Republicans try to filibuster ObamaCare in an attempt to get Obama to start over with the goal of producing a more modest bill that tries to curb costs and helps small businesses and people with health problems secure coverage, the Democrats will use parliamentary procedures to ram the package through anyway.

Health insurance coverage and medical care in this country will be changed dramatically with no input from anyone who opposes the plans. Plans overwhelmingly opposed by the American people will be slipped through the cracks in the floor, the voters be damned.

Among Obama's recently announced "improvements" is a plan to let the federal government control how much your insurance company can charge you for insurance. A Federal panel will monitor and block exorbitant rate hikes and other unfair practices by the insurance industry.

This sounds good on the surface; but of course, there will be no definition of "exorbitant rate hikes," so Obama can block any rate increase for any reason, including political reasons.

Remember Humana insurance, who sent an e-mail to customers about potential changes to their service as a result of these "reforms"? Are they in line to have their every cost increase labeled "exorbitant"?

You will be forced by law to have health insurance whether you want to or not, and Obama will tell you how much it will cost you. One person in the federal government will get to determine what your health plan covers or doesn't include and it will be illegal for you to pay a doctor for a service on your own. Sounds like America to me, doesn't it?

According to Plum Line, Eric cantor (R-VA) sums up the Obama/Reid/Pelosi health care juggernaut well:

The Obama plan costs a trillion dollars, puts government in control of personal health decisions, and allows the government to set prices in the private market. That mirrors the Pelosi/Reid plans that have already been soundly rejected by the bipartisan majority of Americans."

Is this really the Hope and Change you voted for America?

CBO: Health Care Reform May "Reduce Access to Care"

According to a blog post on the Weekly Standard's Web site, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf has defined the "death panels" that have been alleged to be an integral part of the Obama/Democrat health care "reform" efforts.

In a letter to Sen Harry Reid, the Weekly Standard has discovered, the cuts to Medicare may well necessitate health care rationing:

It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.

Shouldn't we all slow down and figure out if these alleged Medicare savings could be achieve through "greater efficiencies" or by slashing care for our Seniors before we institute these reductions?

After all, the provisions in the health care "reform" won't kick in for four more years; it seems that such a waiting period would allow some further investigation.

But, even if the savings work, it seems that they aren't savings at all:

Republicans, emboldened by a new letter from the Congressional Budget Office, accused Democrats on Wednesday of "Bernie Madoff accounting" for double counting the savings from Medicare as a means to pay for the Senate health care bill.

Check this out from CBO top-dog Elmendorf:

..(the) government counts money two ways, either through trust fund accounting, in which money is borrowed from future Medicare payments to pay for existing Medicare programs but is like a revolving line of credit, or unified budget accounting, in which the trust fund money is borrowed from Medicare but then spent on other health care programs that don't generate money to be be paid back into Medicare later.

Say what?

Even after we find out if this works or grandma gets left out in the medical cold, the Liberals in the Senate are trying to make sure no one fixes -- I mean, changes -- the Medicare "reforms" later on.

In a questionably Constitutional, and definitely immoral, provision, Harry Reid et. al. want to block any changes to the Medicare "reforms" they are instituting:

"it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

Once the Death Panels are firmly established, the Libs want no one to take them away.

One can only hope that the Republicans gain some traction with their charges that parts of the Senate bill are unconstitutional.

Two key issues seem to be attracting the bulk of the legal threats: a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance and the special treatment that states like Nebraska are getting in the bill.

"I don't believe Congress has the legal or moral authority to force this mandate on its citizens," Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev said in a statement.

But, lest anyone think that the Liberals have no interest in the Constitution, Harry Reid calls the efforts to ensure Constitutionality as "a sign of desperation."

Yes, Harry, we are desperate. You must kill this bill before it kills the best medical system in the world.

Health Care Control for All

For those who think that the health care plans being debated by Congress will not affect you if ObamaCare goes through, you are mistaken.

After all, we have all heard President Obama tell us that if like our health care plan, we can keep it. While this is true on a semantic level, on a paperwork level, the government will tell your health insurance company what all plans can and must include.

From the latest version of the health care bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 3926):

Sec. 201: On or after the first day of Y1, a health benefits plan shall not be a qualified health benefits plan under this division unless the plan meets the applicable requirements of the following subtitles for the type of plan and plan year involved:
4 (1) Subtitle B (relating to affordable coverage).

Sec. 221 A qualified health benefits plan shall provide coverage that at least meets the benefit standards adopted under section 224 for the essential benefits package described in section 222 for the plan year involved.

This means that a health care plan will not be considered qualified unless it meets requirements that will be decided upon later. While we have no idea what will actually be covered by health insurance plans, we do know that your plan will be "average."

Sec. 222. In this division, the term ‘‘essential benefits package’’ means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 224, to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security, that—

(5) is equivalent in its scope of benefits, as certified by Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to the average prevailing employer-sponsored coverage in Y1.

In order to carry out paragraph (5), the Secretary of Labor shall conduct a survey of employer-sponsored coverage to determine the benefits typically covered by employers, including multiemployer plans, and provide a report on such survey to the Health Benefits Advisory Committee and to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

After all, average is fair. We can't have people buying "cadillac" plans when others can only afford to buy, or their employers can only support, Kia plans. You won't mind sacrificing on medical care coverage for your family, will you?

Sec. 224 Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary (of Health and Human Service) shall, through the rulemaking process consistent with subsection (a), adopt an initial set of benefit standards.

But, Obama told us we can keep our plan! Where does it say that it will change?

Right here:

Sec. 241 The Health Commissioner shall...promote accountability of Qualified Health Plan Benefits offering entities in meeting Federal health insurance requirements, regardless of whether such accountability is with respect to qualified health benefits plans offered through the Health Insurance Exchange or outside of such Exchange.

But, that just talks about "qualified" health plans. Can't my insurer come up with a scaled-down plan, like a catastrophic plan, that will cover my basic needs but not necessarily meet the "initial set of benefit standards"?

Well, they could, but:

Sec 241. In the case that the Commissioner determines that a QHBP offering entity violates a requirement of this title, the Commissioner may... (work) with State insurance regulators to terminate plans for repeated failure by the offering entity to meet the requirements of this title.

So you see folks, the federal government, through a agency of unelected, unaccountable people, including at least one practicing physician (Sec. 223), will be deciding what your health insurance plan can and will offer and what kind of medical care your doctor can provide to you -- and your children and your family -- whether you sign up for the plan "offered through the Health Insurance Exchange or outside of such Exchange."

And there ain't no other way to get a health insurance plan.

Boston Globe: At Least Obama's Health Care is Better than North Korea

The Boston Globe's Metro newspaper, a freebie hand-out tabloid hawked on subway platforms, gives feint praise to President Obama and his health care "reform" plans:

Health care is far from the only issue driving critics to chide Obama for wanting to turn America into a socialist nation. Since the beginning of the 2008 election, Republicans have been warning that Obama plans to institute über-liberal policies. Here’s a look at the policies of some of the world’s countries most rooted in socialism. The United States is a far cry from them.

In short: We'll, it ain't Cuba!

Under one of the more ludicrous headlines of all time, the paper compares the United States favorably to such "Socialist" countries as Cuba, China, Vietnam, and North Korea.

China: The Government oversees private business entities, mandating that they conform to the state's economic interests.

Setting aside that these countries are avowed Communist regimes, I am grateful that the Obama administration doesn't control any private entities in this country, or want to meddle in their business affairs or affect the course of any business in the U.S.

If the best thing you can say about Obama's health care plan is that it is better than North Korea's health care, you had better revisit your talking points.

You think Obama's policies are liberal? America, you haven’t even begun to taste true liberalism...

Perhaps that is true; but we don't want a taste of "true liberalism" (aka Communism). It tastes bitter going down and leaves a real sour aftertaste, from what I hear.

President Obama: I Will Pass Health Care Overhaul Unilaterally

President Obama plans to pass massive health care legislation that will affect every single American citizen without considering the opinions of legislators opposing the measure:

"Sometime in September we're going to have to make an assessment" about whether to keep trying to negotiate with Republicans, President Obama told MSNBC.

Well, so much for the new tone in Washington under Obama. Another broken campaign promise.

Like the planning and execution of the "stimulus" bill before, Republicans Need Not Apply.

We will just have to get him to break that promise about taking over the health care system.

I Turned Myself in to the White House Disinformation Line

Feeling horribly guilty about trying to spread the truth about the Obama health care take-over plans, I turned myself in to the White House Health Reform Office.

Dear Leader --

I feel I must turn myself in. I have been trading in disinformation about President Obama's health care plans.

On a nearly daily basis, I have been posting things to my FaceBook account and to my blog when I can.

http://redboyinabluestate.blogspot.com/

I have used actual facts, direct quotes from the president, and opinions of experts in my missives. In short, I have been speaking the truth about how this plan will hurt nearly all Americans.

I know I should be toeing the Obama line about how he can add 50 million people to the health care rolls without causing any changes in the way I receive health care. I know that I should be saying that the president's plans will not just say money, but will actually earn a multi-billion dollar profit.

I am sorry. I will try to do better from now on, Amen.

Phew. I feel better. I turned myself in because I just know that Obama doesn't really want Americans to turn their fellow citizens for having an opinion and expressing their freedom of speech.

That would be un-American.

Obama: Doctors Sacrifice Patient Care to Make Money

Without using these exact words, President Obama signaled to the American people that he believes medical doctors routinely sacrifice proper medical care in favor of making more money for themselves.

When asked by Steve Koff of the Cleveland Plain Dealer if the American people would see a drop in service from doctors under the Obama plan, the president impugned all doctors by suggesting they make patient care decisions solely based on what they can charge.

Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. So if they're looking and you come in and you've got a bad sore throat or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, "You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out."

Does any serious, common-sense person out there truly believe that all doctors -- a majority of doctors, any number more than a couple of exceptions -- would intentionally look for the most expensive remedy for an ailment?

While I am certain that some may act this way, it is a tiny minority, not worth revamping 17% of the U.S. economy to stop.

Perhaps, too, there are some doctors who choose riskier, more "profitable" procedures out of hubris, to prove they can.

But, I highly doubt that the typical pediatrician has a price list on the wall and looks to super-size your care just so he can make that next payment on his new Hummer. If your doc does this, it is time to find a new doctor -- something allowed under 100% of health care plans.

Sorry Obama; just more lies, distortions, and rhetoric from the Hope and Change man himself.

Obama's Smoke and Mirrors Health Care Financing

During ABC News' forum on President Obama's health care plans, a program called Prescription for America, Obama summarized his ambitions towards health care reform as "Build on what works, fix what's broken, and still save substantial money."

Fine and reasonable-sounding goals.

However, as he discussed financing his plans throughout the evening, the reasonableness started to fade quickly from what he was saying. In short, Obama believes he can finance the $1.6 billion to $3 billion estimated price tag by:

• capping tax deductions on charitable deductions for people making over $250,000
• "reallocating existing health care dollars that are not money that is not being spent wisely."
• incorporating anticipated savings from changing the way health care is managed(such as "paying for quality instead of quantity and making sure we are investing in prevention").

Using these three methods, he assures us, will allow him to cover the alleged 46 million uninsured people. Color me skeptical.

The amount of money from capping tax deductions is unquantifiable. No one can predict the affect that changing the tax deduction for charitable deductions will affect the amount people donate. We know historically that charitable deductions are greatly affected by the economy. Why would one assume that changing tax deductability will not reduce the amount donated and, thus, the amount of taxes that can be put towards health care (not to mention the severe disconnect between charitable giving and health care funding). If revenue targets are not met, what next? Does he continue to lower the thresholds until revenue is satisfied or all charitable deductions are eliminated?

Next, Obama discussed this amorphous reallocation of unwisely spent funds without discussing now much this represents. He repeatedly mentioned that "all the experts" agree that 30% of health care spending is not being spent "wisely." Here again is a classic Obama trick -- what is "wisely" and who will determine which funds can be "reallocated" and to where.

And, of course, is the ridiculous notion of counting upon estimated future savings to pay for current programs. It is pure common sense that one should not include speculative future savings in the current budget. It is such a common sense measure that the politically independent Congressional Budget Office, whose entire function is to evaluate the costs of government programs, is not allowed to consider future savings.

Obama assured us that "only 2-3 % (of taxpayers) would see tax increase" in order to fund his health care initiatives.

If you believe that, I have a health insurance bridge plan to sell you.