Congress on Health Care..."For us? Nyet!"

Sheer arrogance...the U.S. Congress passes legislation for the masses and then individually opts out with another system of coverage for themselves. We're told that O Force Health Care is good enough for the rest of us though!  I've written a letter to Senator Billy Nelson of Florida inquiring as to why he opted out of O Force Health Care and why he felt it wasn't good enough for him and his family.  No response yet.  I suggest you write to each of your senators (the R-FL Senator George LeMieux didn't vote for the Health Care bill) and inquire likewise.  Who knows?  Perhaps congress has saved the taxpayer's money by accepting a cheaper, lousier service than the rest of us are gonna get.  Whadda ya think?  

Enacting A Lie

It's tough to keep up with all the various angles on this issue, but I will say I adore this editorial, and their staff knows a whole lot more than little old me...

Enacting A Lie

Posted 03/22/2010 06:53 PM ET

Health Overhaul: 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.

That's why we call the program a lie.

The idea behind all this, simply put, is control. This is a vast expansion of government that will require as much as $3 trillion in added spending over a decade. All claims of deficit neutrality are a joke.

This is socialization through the tax code. That $3 trillion has to be paid for. As we showed last week, the health care bill levies $569.2 billion in new taxes over the next 10 years alone.

At the same time, as noted by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former head of the Congressional Budget Office, it will increase U.S. budget deficits by $562 billion.

Who'll pay all these taxes? Those deemed "rich" by Democrats, and businesses. Specifically, the bulk of the money comes from a special 3.8% Medicare tax on 5 million people earning more than $200,000 a year. That tax is imposed on capital gains, dividends, rents, royalties and interest — that is, investment income.

Obama already has proposed boosting these taxes in his budget. So the top tax take on dividends and cap gains will rise to 23.8% from 15%, an increase of nearly 59%, while top rates on interest and rents will soar from 15% to nearly 44%, a 193% jump.

About 50% of this higher-taxed group reports small business or partnership income. So don't be fooled: These aren't taxes on the "rich," but on small businesses and jobs.

In ObamaCare, the taxes will be ruinous. Unlike real insurance, where individuals pay to cover their risks, this program covers everyone — including 32 million uninsured — and pays for it by a "mandate" ( read: "tax" ) and by taking money from other people to subsidize those who can't pay. And this just scratches the surface of the new taxes — we literally don't have room to list them here.

Hmm. Taking money from one group, and giving it to another. That's called welfare — or, perhaps, health-fare. It's not insurance.

Once the new program is finished wrecking what remains of the private health insurance industry — as it ultimately will — we'll be stuck with the government declaring that "the market doesn't work" and forcing all of us into a single-payer government plan.

That's what those Democrats who back "Medicare for all" want — to kill what's left of the private market for health care, which has created the best medical system on earth, and use "reform" to expand an already-bankrupt Medicare system.

The math behind this is ugly. Medicare's long-term liabilities now total $89 trillion, according to the Government Accountability Office. Based on projected deficits, the just-passed health reform will take that to $136 trillion.

It will take a lot more than the "rich," as defined today, to make up such unfathomable tax shortfalls. That's when they'll come for the rest of us — poor, middle-class and rich alike — and we all will be paying vastly higher taxes for vastly inferior medical care.

(Click on bold headline for complete story)

'Nuff Said!

Massachusetts State Treasurer slams Dems on Health Care - Says it will Bankrupt USA

Considering his state of Taxxachusetts (MA) has tried socializing health care, this non-endorsement should raise eyebrows.

By Jessica Van Sack | Wednesday, March 17, 2010 | http://www.bostonherald.com

State Treasurer Tim Cahill, taking swipes at both Gov. Deval Patrick and President Obama, boosted his bipartisan chops yesterday, telling Herald columnist Howie Carr on WRKO, “I voted for John McCain, believe it or not.”

Cahill, saying he was barred from the 2008 Democratic National Convention because he wouldn’t endorse either Obama or Hillary Clinton, said, “My own party basically voted me out.”

“I was afraid of what we had already been getting in Massachusetts, and at that point in 2008, I was aware that it wasn’t working,” he said. Separately yesterday, Cahill accused Obama of “propping up” the Bay State’s health plan with federal aid in order to help push the Democrats’ plan through Congress.

“The real problem is that this . . . sucking sound of money has been going into this health-care reform,” Cahill said. “And I would argue that it’s being propped up so that the federal government and the Obama administration can drive it through.”

Gov. Deval Patrick argues the state’s universal health care program has added 1 percent to the budget, but Cahill said the real impact is buffered by federal dollars.

Meanwhile, Republican Charles Baker’s campaign said Patrick “has consistently failed to address rising health-care costs in Massachusetts.” Baker, the former Harvard Pilgrim CEO, advocated for years for greater transparency on the part of medical service providers.

Cahill called on congressional Democrats yesterday to go “back to the drawing board,” saying he fears they will “bankrupt” the country.

Patrick’s campaign yesterday used Cahill’s health-care smackdown in its latest fund-raising pitch, e-mailing supporters that Cahill “is advocating policies that could put that access, and their health, in jeopardy.” Patrick, whose administration held a hearing on health-care costs yesterday, said exorbitant premium increases and medical service costs need to be curbed through legislation he has proposed.

(Click on bold headline for complete story)

About Barry's healthcare Plan...

What We Would Ask: Questions about Obama's health care plan
Conservative and free market experts supply questions for the upcoming ABC special 'Prescription for America.'

By Julia A. Seymour
Business & Media Institute

The Business & Media Institute asked several conservatives and free market health care proponents to offer questions they’d like to see asked of President Obama at the ABC "Prescription for America" town hall June 24.

The experts were concerned with people being forced onto the public plan by employers, potential tax increases, individual or employer mandates for health insurance and enforcement of those mandates, cost containment measures and the flaws of current government-run programs like Medicare.

Here are their questions:

120 million would lose private coverage

“Mr. President, How do you justify the fact that you keep telling people they can keep the health coverage they have now if they like it but studies prove that 120 million Americans would lose the private coverage they have today, many of them involuntarily, if a public plan were introduced?”

Federal regulation might impinge on doctor/patient relationship

“You say people will have a right to their relationship with their doctor. Will there be any kind of practice guidelines from the federal government accompanied by either regulations or reimbursement reductions? And if there are how does that not interfere with the doctor patient relationship?”

Tax increases?

“You have said that typical Americans will receive a reduction on average of $2,500. Can you guarantee that that $2,500 reduction in their health care will not be offset by any tax increases?”

Against individual mandates before he was for them

“You’ve said you’re open to the idea of an individual mandate. You’ve reversed your position (since you opposed Hillary Clinton’s proposal for a mandate during the campaign). Why would a mandate be enforceable now when it wasn’t when you were running against Mrs. Clinton?”

Fines for not purchasing insurance?

“What kind of penalties should Americans be subjected to if they do not comply with an individual mandate to buy insurance?”

Taxing employers for not providing insurance

“If we have a pay or play (employer mandate) what should be the right level of taxation that will be imposed on employers who do not offer health insurance to their employees?”

Job losses from insurance mandates

“Has OMB [Office of Management and Budget] done any estimation of what the additional unemployment would follow from the imposition of an employer mandate?”

Government-run health care no matter what you call it

“If the federal government runs an insurance plan, runs a national health insurance exchange, designs the benefits that Americans will have and imposes penalties on Americans that do not comply with federal health policy why is this not government-run health care?”

Falling costs

“President Obama, can you name one example of the government taking over an industry and costs falling as a result?”

Medicare is going bankrupt

“President Obama, the best example we have of a government option in health care is Medicare. Medicare is projected to bankrupt the federal budget in the 21^st century so why are we to believe that another government health care plan with do any better?”

Cost containment means rationing

“President Obama, in Europe and Canada cost containment has often taken the form of rationing of health care. In the United Kingdom, government bureaucrats decide whether or not a person is worthy of receiving certain medical procedures based on their value to society. Is that the type of cost containment you would envision in your type of health care?”

Rigged competition

“President Obama, you say that a public plan will merely compete with existing public sector private health plans. What steps will be taken to ensure that the system is not rigged in favor of the public plan winning these competitions?”

Runaway Medicare

“Presumably this thing is going to be run like Medicare so how does that actually keep costs down? Medicare has runaway costs. The federal government doesn’t deal with fraud. In 2007, Medicaid had $32 billion in improper payments which is giving out reimbursements for services that didn’t happen. Both Medicare and Medicaid are fee for service programs.”

A free-market solution

“Why wouldn’t it be better for a program of tax credits or tax deductions be better than a public plan option at getting care to the people who need it?”

Fix the tax code

“Why don’t we address the inequities in the tax code that favor employer-based health care?”

Forced out of private insurance

“Studies show 120 million Americans would be switched onto a government plan by their employers, not of their own choosing. In light of that, why do you keep telling people nothing has to change regarding their health coverage?”

Cost of non-compliance

“How much do you think Americans should have to pay if they don’t comply with a health insurance mandate?”

(Click on bold headline for complete story)