From Investor’s Business Daily

Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.

The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors’ own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.

It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration’s claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.

The IBD/TIPP Poll was conducted by mail the past two weeks, with 1,376 practicing physicians chosen randomly throughout the country taking part. Responses are still coming in, and doctors’ positions on related topics — including the impact of an overhaul on senior care, medical school applications and drug development — will be covered later in this series.

Major findings included:

• Two-thirds, or 65%, of doctors say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan. This contradicts the administration’s claims that doctors are part of an “unprecedented coalition” supporting a medical overhaul.

It also differs with findings of a poll released Monday by National Public Radio that suggests a “majority of physicians want public and private insurance options,” and clashes with media reports such as Tuesday’s front-page story in the Los Angeles Times with the headline “Doctors Go For Obama’s Reform.”

Nowhere in the Times story does it say doctors as a whole back the overhaul. It says only that the AMA — the “association representing the nation’s physicians” and what “many still regard as the country’s premier lobbying force” — is “lobbying and advertising to win public support for President Obama’s sweeping plan.”

The AMA, in fact, represents approximately 18% of physicians and has been hit with a number of defections by members opposed to the AMA’s support of Democrats’ proposed health care overhaul.

• Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they “would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement” if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind.

More than 800,000 doctors were practicing in 2006, the government says. Projecting the poll’s finding onto that population, 360,000 doctors would consider quitting.

• More than seven in 10 doctors, or 71% — the most lopsided response in the poll — answered “no” when asked if they believed “the government can cover 47 million more people and that it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better.”

This response is consistent with critics who complain that the administration and congressional Democrats have yet to explain how, even with the current number of physicians and nurses, they can cover more people and lower the cost at the same time.

The only way, the critics contend, is by rationing care — giving it to some and denying it to others. That cuts against another claim by plan supporters — that care would be better.

Read the rest of the story

Posted from Hot Air

Mark Tapscott discovers a nugget in the analysis provided by the Congressional Research Office on HR3200, the House version of ObamaCare coming to the floor.  While Barack Obama insists that the idea that ObamaCare will cover illegal immigrants is a “myth,” the CRS points out that the bill does nothing to prevent it.  Since HR3200 doesn’t require people to establish citizenship or legal residency before applying to exchanges for health insurance, including the public option, taxpayer money will certainly flow to illegal immigrants:

In what he called the “first myth” being spread by critics of his proposal for a government-run health care system, Obama said they are wrong in claiming illegal immigrants will be covered: “That is not true. Illegal immigrants would not be covered. That idea has not even been on the table.” Obama said.

Well, Mr. President, that idea must have been tucked under a stack of background briefing papers over there in the corner of the table because the Congressional Research Service (CRS) says this about H.R. 3200, the Obamacare bill approved just before the recess by the House Energy and Commerce Committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA:

“Under H.R. 3200, a ‘Health Insurance Exchange’ would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange.”

CRS reports do not get released to the public.  CRS offers private analysis to members of Congress on request, but rarely do they see the light of day.  However, David Freddoso got his hands on a copy of the 11-page analysis, “Treatment of Non-Citizens in HR3200″ late last night, and confirmed Tapscott’s reading:

In its subsection on health insurance subsidies (known as “affordability credits”), HR 3200 does state, “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.” That would seem to solve the problem, but it’s more rhetoric than reality. The bill contains no verification requirement or enforcement process for citizenship or legal residency, as exists for other federal benefit programs. The only verification required for the subsidies pertains to family income. Beyond that, as the CRS report notes, everything is left in the hands of the Health Choices Commissioner.

House Democrats defeated all attempts in committee to add an enforcement mechanism that would require proof of citizenship or legal residency for those getting subsidies.

CRS also notes that “undocumented aliens” who have a “substantial presence” in the US would be required to buy health insurance (page 4) through the exchanges in HR3200.  They would also become eligible for “emergency Medicaid,” although not normal Medicaid (page 6) for up to five years.

Read the rest of the column

Posted from National Center for Policy Analysis

By John Goodman — Consider this:

Proposition One:  No health insurance company should be able to turn down any applicant or charge a higher premium because of health status.

Proposition Two:  The federal government should tell you what health insurance you must have, where you will get it and what price you must pay and levy steep fines on you and your employer if you fail to comply.

Proposition One is what people thought they heard Barack Obama say during the election, and they voted for it. Proposition Two is what they are now hearing from Congress and they’re not buying it. Yet what has never been said publicly is that Two follows from One. That is, it is almost impossible to have One (which people seem to want) without Two (which they don’t want).

Can Barack Obama (with all his oratorical skills) convince people that One and Two are related and that they have to accept Two in order to have One? I doubt it.

As I have said many times, almost no one on Capitol Hill or in the Obama Administration understands health care as a complex system. Invariably, they think they can enact ideas that are popular and avoid ideas that are unpopular without understanding that they are all linked. It is only when politicians sit down with economists who are trained to analyze complex systems that it dawns on them that they are in a very unpleasant trap. They have been in that trap for the past eight months, and no one seems to know how to get out of it. The only thing worse would be for the Republicans to jump in the same trap with them.

Here’s how we get from Prop One to Prop Two in 10 hard-to-disconnect steps:

1. If we know we can buy health insurance after we get sick with no increase in premiums, none of us will want to pay premiums for insurance while we are healthy. Yet, if only the sick are paying premiums, the entire insurance system will collapse.
2. So to prevent collapse, there must be a requirement that people buy in when they are healthy.
3. Now if the requirement is a general mandate — with lots of coverage options — we are back to a variation of the problem in 1. People will choose scaled down, inexpensive insurance when they are healthy and then switch to comprehensive, expensive insurance after they get sick.
4. So to prevent a meltdown similar to the one described in 1, choices must be eliminated and there must be a standard (government-defined) benefit package which all individuals are required to buy and all insurers are required to sell. People won’t be allowed to buy anything less generous and no insurer would be foolish enough to offer anything more generous.
5. Now suppose there is a health insurance Exchange where people get their insurance, but insurance can also be sold outside the Exchange. In particular, imagine a special deal offered to the Iron Man’s Club (requirement: swim a mile, run 10 miles and bicycle 20 miles). Soon, word would get out that anyone who can qualify for Iron Man membership can get the standard benefit package for a really cheap price. In this, and in other ways, insurers outside the Exchange would siphon away the healthiest people leaving the Exchange with the sickest, most costly enrollees.
6. So to prevent the death spiral the conditions in 5 would lead to, insurance outside the Exchange would have to be outlawed and insurance within the Exchange highly regulated. (See below.)
7. How can you force people to buy insurance? Since cattle prods are too impractical and prison cells are too expensive, about the only practical tool is a fine. And if you want it to work, the fine needs to be near (and maybe even above) the premium people have to pay.
8. Of course, there is this problem: How can we know whether anyone has insurance? The easiest way — without a new bureaucracy — is to rely on the income tax system. Make people show proof of insurance at the time they file their income taxes.
9. Trouble is: People file tax returns once a year and most people who are currently uninsured are uninsured for less than a year. So a logical way to get to people with greater regularity is to use the employers as an enforcement mechanism.
10. Once employers are involved, however, we run into the unfortunate fact that most people believe that premium payments are an addition to wages, not a substitute for them. So to the question, “should we mandate that you buy insurance or that your employer buy it for you,” the employer tends to win hands down. Result: both an individual mandate and an employer mandate seem inevitable.

Notice the cyclical pattern in all of this. You distort incentives in a complex system and you get perverse behavior. To prevent that, you distort incentives some more and you get other kinds of perverse behavior. The more you intervene, the greater the need for even more intervention.

So what’s the answer?  We need to reject Proposition One and find a better way of solving that problem.

Contradictions worthy of the Marx Brothers

Posted from the Wall Street Journal

The thing about the bully pulpit is that Presidents can make the most fantastic claims and it takes days to sort the reality from the myths. So as a public service, let’s try to navigate the, er, remarkable Medicare discussion that President Obama delivered on Wednesday. It isn’t easy.

Mr. Obama began by depicting a crisis in the entitlement state, noting that “our health-care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers,” especially Medicare. Unless we find a way to cauterize this fiscal hemorrhage, “we will eventually be spending more on Medicare than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health-care program is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close.”

On this score he’s right. Medicare’s unfunded liability—the gap between revenues and promised benefits—is currently some $37 trillion over the next 75 years. Yet the President uses this insolvency as an argument to justify the creation of another health-care entitlement, this time for most everyone under age 65. It’s like a variation on the old Marx Brothers routine: “The soup is terrible and the portions are too small.”

As astonishing, Mr. Obama claimed he can finance universal health care without adding “one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period,” in large part by pumping money out of Medicare. The $880 billion Senate plan he all but blessed this week would cut Medicare by as much as $500 billion, mainly by cutting what Mr. Obama called “waste and abuse.” Perhaps this is related to the “waste and abuse” that Congresses of both parties have targeted dozens of times without ever cutting it.

Read the rest of the column

Many doctors refuse Medicare patients because payments are so low.

From the Wall Street Journal

Democratic leaders at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue continue to battle over whether a new government-run health plan, modeled after the popular Medicare program for seniors, must be included in health-reform legislation.

President Barack Obama told a New Hampshire town-hall meeting last month that “if we’re able to get something right like Medicare, then there should be a little more confidence that maybe the government can have a role.” Did the government really get Medicare right? Here are the top 10 reasons this program should not be a model for reform, and why it would be dangerous for the federal government to be put in charge of any more of our health sector:

1) Medicare is going bankrupt. The Medicare Trustees estimate that the program will run short of money starting in 2017. Medicare will drown in a sea of red ink, with spending over the next 75 years outpacing dedicated revenues by nearly $38 trillion.

2) Private payers are bailing out Medicare. According to Milliman, an independent actuarial firm, Medicare—and to an even greater extent, Medicaid—underpays doctors and hospitals, shifting costs to private insurers. Milliman estimates that the average family in a private PPO health plan pays an additional $1,788 a year to compensate for underpayments by Medicare and Medicaid, representing a “hidden tax” on commercial payers totaling $89 billion a year.

Providers could not keep their doors open without the higher payments from private insurers. A recent letter to Congress from 13 leading health-care delivery organizations, including the Mayo Clinic, said “many providers suffer great financial losses associated with treating Medicare patients.” They said that if these rates were expanded to patients who currently have private insurance, the result “will be unsustainable for even the nation’s most efficient, high quality providers, eventually driving them out of the market.” That means we would say goodbye to some of the best health-care systems in the country.

3) Expansion of entitlement programs threatens our economic security. Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf broke the bad news in July. Reform legislation before Congress would worsen the federal government’s already bleak budget outlook, increase the deficit, and drive the nation more deeply into debt. Instead of bending the cost curve down, Mr. Elmendorf told senators their reform proposal would “significantly increase” costs.

Read the rest of the column

Posted from Investors Business Daily

Reform: Millions of Americans finally got to hear the Democrats’ pitch on health care reform, made by their top salesman. But they heard nothing new — just a lot of discredited myths recycled as the truth.

For the record, we support improving our health care system. As is, it has too many rules, too much government spending and too few market forces to keep costs low and quality high.

We spend north of $2 trillion every year on health care — 17% of our GDP, the most of any wealthy nation. If that sounds like a lot, remember this: An estimated 47% of that already is spent by the government. And government’s share will grow even without “reform.”

Look closely at the plans so far to emerge from Congress. What the Democrats have proposed, in essence, is a government takeover of nearly one-fifth of our nation’s economy. When brought up in Congress, this idea has been rejected repeatedly. Yet, somehow, the idea never dies.

That’s why the president’s speech Wednesday night was a big disappointment.

Rather than a breakthrough that would remove government’s stranglehold on a once-healthy market and move us toward true reform, we heard a lot of old bromides and myths — things we just can’t let go uncorrected. Too much is at stake.

So following are 15 of the biggest misconceptions — and there are many more, we assure you — that we found in the speech:

• “The uninsured . . . live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare.”

Actually, of the 46 million people the census estimates don’t have insurance, some 20 million have incomes above average and could afford to buy it, according to a study by former Congressional Budget Office Director June O’Neill.

Of the remaining 26 million uninsured, an estimated 13.7 million are poor. They are eligible for Medicaid — the state health care programs for the poor. But many, too, are illegals — about 8 million.

Though they’re eligible, research from the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association suggests as many as 14 million uninsured Americans qualify for public coverage, but don’t enroll. And as many as 6 million are enrolled, but don’t report it to the government, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis.

That leaves about 5 million people with no care.

By the way, according to the Census Bureau, America now has 37 million people in poverty. But Medicaid enrollment covers 55 million people — at a cost of $350 billion a year.

Based on this, no one should be without care. Which leads us to wonder: Is nationalizing our health care system really necessary to take care of people who already have care available to them?

• “Many other Americans . . . are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover.”

This statement betrays a profound ignorance of what insurance is. If you can buy insurance after you’ve gotten sick, it’s not really insurance, is it? And why have insurance at all? It’s an incentive to simply wait until you get sick, then make someone else pay for it.

To see how absurd this is, let’s take the same concept to auto insurance. Why not let people buy insurance after they get in an accident? One reason, of course, is it leads to fiscal and personal recklessness.

• “There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage . . . every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage.”

As noted above, the bulk of the 30-plus million uninsured actually can get coverage — and in many cases, qualify for existing government programs. But how about 14,000 Americans losing their coverage each day? A little math shows this is just a scare statistic.

Multiply it out, and it comes to 5.1 million people losing coverage in a year. Sound scary? Consider that, according to the census, 46.3 million Americans don’t currently have insurance — 600,000 more than last year. That means that, along with 14,000 Americans losing their coverage each day, another 12,400 Americans are signing up for it — even in the middle of a brutal recession.

Those who lose insurance do so usually because they’ve lost a job. Most are without insurance for a couple of months or so. The best way to boost the number of insured — and one that “costs” nothing — is to cut taxes, ease regulations and slash government spending. Those policies are all proven job creators.

• “We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it.”

This is a non sequitur. We spend one and a half times more per person, true. But because our health care here is better. That’s right — better. True, our life expectancy of 78.1 years — which is up sharply from just a decade ago — ranks us 30th in the world in longevity. But look a little closer at the data.

The U.S. homicide rate is two to three times higher than in other industrial nations. And we drive a lot more than others, so our auto fatality rate of 14.24 deaths per 100,000 people is higher than in Germany (6.19), France (7.4) or Canada (9.25). Add to this, we eat far more than other countries on average, contributing to higher levels of heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer.

When all those factors are figured in, according to a recent study by Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M and John Schneider of the University of Iowa, Americans actually live longer than people in other countries — thanks mainly to our excellent health care.

Read the rest of the column

Posted from the Wall Street Journal

By Mark Mix – In the heated debates on health-care reform, not enough attention is being paid to the huge financial windfalls ObamaCare will dole out to unions—or to the provisions in the various bills in Congress that will help bring about the forced unionization of the health-care industry.

Tucked away in thousands of pages of complex new rules, regulations and mandates are special privileges and giveaways that could have devastating consequences for the health-care sector and the American economy at large.

The Senate version opens the door to implement forced unionization schemes pursued by former Govs. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois in 2005 and Gray Davis of California in 1999. Both men repaid tremendous political debts to Andy Stern and his Service Employees International Union (SEIU) by reclassifying state-reimbursed in-home health-care (and child-care) contractors as state employees—and forcing them to pay union dues.

Following this playbook, the Senate bill creates a “personal care attendants workforce advisory panel” that will likely impose union affiliation to qualify for a newly created “community living assistance services and support (class)” reimbursement plan.

The current House version of ObamaCare (H.R. 3200) goes much further. Section 225(A) grants Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius tremendous discretionary authority to regulate health-care workers “under the public health insurance option.” Monopoly bargaining and compulsory union dues may quickly become a required standard resulting in potentially hundreds of thousands of doctors and nurses across the country being forced into unions.

Read the rest of the column

Posted fom the National Center for Policy Analysis

By Devon Herrick — One of the primary goals of health reform is to ensure that all Americans have health insurance. Yet it is generally overlooked that the proportion of Americans without health coverage has been relatively stable over time.  According to the Census Bureau, in 2008 the number of individuals in the United States lacking health coverage rose from 45.7 million to 46.3 million.  The proportion of uninsured Americans remained virtually unchanged, rising from 15.3 percent to 15.4 percent.

In fact, the proportion of people with­out health insurance in 2008 is virtually unchanged from a decade ear­lier.The increase in the number of uninsured over the past decade is largely due to immigration and population growth – and to individual choice.

How Big Is the Problem?

In 2008, according to Census Bureau data:

• Nearly 85 percent of U.S. residents (255.1 million people) were privately insured or enrolled in a government health program, such as Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Programs (S-CHIP).
• About 13.7 million uninsured adults and children live in households earning less than $25,000 annually. Many in this group already qualify for Medicaid or S-CHIP. For instance, past research by the BlueCross BlueShield Association estimated that up to 14 million uninsured individuals qualify for public coverage but have not enrolled. Indeed, three million to six million people identified as uninsured may already be covered by Medicaid or S-CHIP but erroneously told Census Bureau they were uninsured because they do not associate Medicaid with insurance coverage. This is referred to as the “Medicaid undercount.”
• Nearly 18 million of the uninsured lived in households with annual incomes above $50,000 – over half of them (9.7 million) in households with incomes that exceed $75,000 annually. There is considerable disagreement about the exact number of people in this group that may be able to afford health coverage. For instance, household income isn’t the same as family income. Unrelated individual living together may not pool resources the same way families would. Yet, it is increasingly common for couples to cohabitate in lieu of marriage and function as a family unit. Arguably, many in this group could afford some type of health insurance – possibly a high-deductible plan or a plan with limited benefits.
• Nearly 15 million uninsured residents live in households with incomes of $25,000 to $50,000 per year. This group does not qualify for Medicaid and (arguably) earns too little to easily afford expensive family plans costing more than $12,000 per year. These are precisely the people who would benefit from a uniform tax credit – which has been proposed as a way to cover the uninsured.

How Serious Is the Problem?

During the past 10 years the number of people with health coverage rose nearly 24 million, while the num­ber without health coverage only increased about 3.75 million. Both increases are largely due to popula­tion growth. Typically, those who lack insurance are uninsured for only a short period of time – more than half will have coverage within a year.

Who Are the Uninsured?

It is often assumed that the uninsured are all low-income families. But among households earning less than $25,000, the number of uninsured actually fell by about 12 percent over the past 10 years. The unin­sured include diverse groups, each uninsured for a different reason:

Immigrants. About 12.3 million foreign-born residents lack health coverage – accounting for 27 per­cent of the uninsured. In 2008, nearly 45 percent of foreign-born noncitizen residents were uninsured. Income may be a factor – but not the only one. A partial explanation for this disparity is that many immigrants come from cultures without a strong history of paying premiums for pri­vate health insurance. In addition, only immigrants who have been legal residents for more than five years qualify for public coverage.

The Young and Healthy. About 19 million 18-to-34-year olds are unin­sured. Most of them are healthy and know they can pay incidental expens­es out of pocket. Using hard-earned dollars to pay for health care they don’t expect to need is a low priority for them.

Read the rest of the story

From Rasmussen Reports:

President Obama’s speech to Congress Wednesday night has provided at least a short-term boost in support for the health care reform plan that he and congressional Democrats have proposed. But the bounce is partisan in nature, with the increase in support coming entirely from those in the president’s own party.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national tracking survey shows that 46% favor the plan and 51% are opposed. The survey was conducted on Wednesday and Thursday nights. The previous two-day sample, conducted Tuesday and Wednesday nights, found that 44% favored the plan while 53% were opposed.

Read the rest of this story at Rasmussen Reports.

Posted from OneNewsNow

A conservative media watchdog organization is demanding that the media reports President Obama’s “lies, distortions, and exaggerations” delivered in his speech on healthcare reform Wednesday night.

The Media Research Center says President Barack Obama will not stop committing what it calls “serial dishonesty with the American people until the media expose his false figures and bogus exaggerations for what they are: fraudulent scare tactics.” The group describes the president’s Wednesday night speech about healthcare as “a litany of lies.”

Rich Noyes, director of research at the MRC, says The Associated Press did do a fact check on his speech.
 
“[The AP story suggests] that he uttered ‘a variety of over simplifications and omissions,’” says Noyes. “He talked about how he would not add a single dime to the deficit, when the studies are showing it would add about a trillion dollars to the deficit over the second year of the plan. He talked about not permitting any illegal immigrant to be covered, when in fact it was Democrats who voted down any attempt to verify immigration status.”
 
“The list of things that he talked about [was] very misleading,” the MRC spokesman concludes, “added to the arrogant veneer of him scolding anybody else for taking liberties with the truth as liars, as he did.”
 
Noyes says Obama’s speech was about as “audacious” as one could possibly get. He says while the AP did do its fact check, there has been little coverage from the mainstream media on Obama taking liberty with the facts during his speech. Until that happens, says MRC, it gives the president “a green light to lie and cry wolf about whatever he wants, whenever he wants — and it will aid in the most radical government takeover ever attempted in America.”

By Gary Bauer, from Campaign for Working Families‘ End of Day Report

The president must have thought he was still speaking to second graders during last night’s speech to the American people and a joint session of Congress. How else can one explain the untruths, misrepresentations and contradictions that were centerpieces of the speech? He described a fantasyland where everyone gets more benefits, nobody loses anything and the deficit magically doesn’t increase. I will point out a few of the distortions below.

But first I want to point out what most of Big Media is ignoring this morning. Republicans are being bashed for inappropriate partisanship because there was a sprinkling of boos and a frustrated Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina accused the president of lying. Big Media is in shock about that outburst, but it appears to have forgotten that President Bush was booed in 2005, and that Harry Reid called President Bush “a loser” and “a liar.” In addition, many are ignoring the bitter partisan tone of the president’s speech.

He accused talk radio (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.), cable news (Fox News) and Republican leaders (Sarah Palin) of lying. He attacked the Bush Administration – AGAIN. And he said nothing about the “attack dogs” of the Left, including members of Congress who have labeled those of us who disagree with socialized medicine as “un-American” and “evil mongers.”

How partisan was his speech? Senator Lindsey Graham, who goes out of his way (too far in my opinion) to “make nice” with liberals in Congress, had this to say: “I was incredibly disappointed in the tone of his speech.  …I found his tone to be overly combative and believe he behaved in a manner beneath the dignity of the office. I fear his speech tonight has made it more difficult — not less — to find common ground.” Even Larry Sabato, a liberal political analyst, called Obama’s remarks, “…a tough, partisan speech.” They are right. The speech sounded like something a community organizer would deliver – not a president.

Now, let’s look at specifics. I’ll quote the president and then give you the facts.

Obama’s fantasy: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future — period.”

The Truth: Not even one Democrat version of the legislation is deficit neutral. The House version, according to the Congressional Budget Office, adds $220 billion to the deficit over the next decade. The Senate bill is changing by the hour, so it is harder to estimate costs, but common sense tells you it is nearly impossible to cover 30 million more people, not cut any services and do it all without more deficit spending.

Obama’s Claim: “Don’t pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut… That will never happen on my watch.”

The Truth: His plan proposes $500 billion in “savings” in Medicare by cutting “waste, fraud and abuse.” This is a sleight of hand as old as Washington, D.C., and it is one reason why our deficit is out of control. There is no budget line for “waste, fraud and abuse.” If there are $500 billion that can be saved, prove it now. Cut that “waste, fraud and abuse” now, and save the money now!

Obama’s Deception: “…the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

The Reality: Is there an American alive who doesn’t know the fiasco of our immigration policies? Countless benefits go to illegal immigrants for one simple reason: There are no strong verification systems to prevent it. Illegals can’t vote, but we know some are voting because liberals oppose photo IDs and proof of citizenship on Election Day. Conservatives in Congress have repeatedly tried to add citizenship verification provisions to the socialized medicine bill, and Obama’s allies have voted them down every time. Voting down citizenship verification is how Obama’s allies ensure that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and groups like La Raza support the legislation.

A recent Rasmussen poll found that 83% of Americans say people should be required to prove their citizenship before receiving government healthcare benefits. But the Congressional Research Service admits that there is no verification mechanism in the bill. No wonder Rep. Joe Wilson yelled, “You lie!” at this point in the speech. And don’t forget: Obama intends to provide an amnesty to illegals anyway, making them eligible for all federal programs.

By the way, I insist that President Obama call Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and Sarah Palin and apologize for calling them liars.

Obama’s Deceit: “…under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions…”

The Facts: Every attempt by pro-life congressmen to add specific language ensuring that your tax dollars won’t be used to subsidize abortions has been defeated by pro-abortion liberals in committee. The legislation requires that everyone receiving a federal subsidy (your tax money) under the proposed law be able to buy insurance that covers abortion. Even the Associated Press and Time Magazine admit that.

And did you notice that when President Obama said it wouldn’t cover abortion there were no cries of outrage from the dozens of pro-abortion extremists in Congress? They know the fix is in and that abortion coverage will be included.

Obama’s Sleight of Hand: Last night, Obama told Americans who already have insurance that they have nothing to worry about. He said: “Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.”

But this statement is different from what he has said in previous speeches on healthcare. Previously, he claimed: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”

Details are important. Why did Obama go from saying “you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period” to “nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have”? The answer is simple. Most Americans get their health insurance from their employer and they generally like it. But once a government-run health insurance company (the public option) is established, many businesses, no one knows how many, will opt to pay a fine and stop providing coverage if the government is going to assume that responsibility. Millions of Americans will lose the coverage they have and like, even though the legislation doesn’t “require” it. But the legislation just makes that outcome very predictable.

Obama’s False Promise: “Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together…”

The Reality: Conservatives have introduced 40 pieces of legislation to reform healthcare. None have been let out of committee by the Democrat majority. In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi hasn’t included Republicans in negotiations for months. Obama has “locked” the White House doors since April – not inviting the congressional minority even once since then to negotiate. When Obama says he wants bi-partisanship, he means conservatives have to embrace his unacceptable Big Government, high cost, deficit-inducing ideas.

I could write a dozen pages, but you get my drift. It was a partisan speech long on distortions and short on facts. One more observation to close: President Obama expressed the same disdain for dissent and energetic debate that is quickly becoming a leftwing theme. He referred to the lively debate this summer at the grassroots as a “spectacle” and “bickering,” and added, “The time for games has passed.”

This is no game. Your freedom is at stake. If this bill passes, Congress will be creating another huge entitlement program. Big Government will be taking on an even bigger responsibility for your welfare and with that a greater demand on your income and standard of living.

But the president needs to be reminded that in America, in contrast to Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela and Ahmadinejad’s Iran, vocal, robust dissent is not only our right, it is our obligation when government and politicians go too far. Brave men and women have died for our right to speak-up and no one, including the president, gets to decide when the debate is over.

Posted from Fox News

By Grover Norquist — Last fall Barack Obama campaigned promising change. Many Americans wanted change. They wanted to change Washington. But Obama meant something very different. He wanted to use Washington to change America. Having the government take over hospitals, doctors, health insurance and life and death decisions is not what most Americans thought they were voting for.

President Obama began his presidency with very high approval ratings. But as Americans watched him take over the banks with bailouts, and take over the car companies with bailouts and spend almost a trillion dollars for a “stimulus” spending package of expensive earmarks and sign a budget with another trillion in new spending—with some nine trillion dollars now to be added to the national debt—the idea of having government take over health care began to look less and less wise.

When Obama said “reform” he clearly meant “take over.” Reform the auto companies. Reform the banking system. Obama would use our tax dollars so he could buy and control whole industries.

When Americans began questioning what Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were doing they found themselves insulted by the politicians who didn’t like the rabble asking pesky questions. Barack Obama doesn’t like his inferiors asking questions like—will the Democrat Congressmen who vote for a “public option” on health care actually live with that public option—or is the public option just for little people?

President Obama was brutally honest when he said the government run “public option” would be like the Post Office. We have, Obama pointed out, a government run post office and privately run UPS and FedEx. Therefore you have choice. Sort of. The federal government taxes UPS and FedEx. The government-run post office does not pay federal or state corporate income taxes or local property taxes. FedEx and UPS do. And it is against the law for you to try and send a first class letter through anyone other than the post office. Well if the government option can tax its competitors and can pass laws to create a monopoly—how is this real choice?

Obama also has a problem because many Americans have friends or relatives with some experience with government run health care in Canada or Britain where the government rations care by making citizens wait to see a doctor, take a test or use a CAT scan or MRI. In Britain, one waits an average of 70 days for cataract surgery, 68 days for bypass surgery, 99 days for hernia repair (ouch), 113 days for tonsillectomy. Median wait times in Canada from general practitioner to seeing a specialist is 9.4 weeks for gynecology. It is on average another 7 weeks between seeing the specialist and getting treatment.

Would the U.S. government ration health care if they ran the health care system? Well, president Obama has already given us the answer. The post office, his model for a public health care system, is losing money (Interesting question how a monopoly loses money). What is the post office response to losing money? Becoming more efficient? No. They will ration post office care by closing on Saturdays. Years ago they rationed by ending twice daily delivery of the mail. Now when you get sick, the government may be closed on Saturdays. Rationing. No fun if you are sick.

Obama promised that health care reform would reduce your insurance costs. And give insurance coverage to 49 million folks with no insurance. Sounded good. Sounded painless. If you were happy with your insurance nothing would change. But now we learn that the government needs one, two or maybe three trillion dollars to give us this new lower-costing health care. If it costs less, what are all the trillions of higher taxes going towards? And now that we read the fine print, we find that there are four general tax hikes in the House of Representatives health care bill. Not just taxes on the rich but on those making less than $250,000 a year, a blatant violation of Obama’s central campaign promise not to raise “any form” of taxes on these families. And new regulations will prevent 30 million American families with flexible spending accounts and health savings accounts from purchasing over the counter medicines. And Medicare will be raided by taking away choices for seniors. You and I are going to pay through the nose for this experiment.

All this pain for what?

For the past eight years Democrats have been voting against and filibustering two important reforms that would help all Americans. First, allowing you to buy your health insurance from any of the 50 states. Right now you are stuck buying insurance from businesses in your state, often with expensive mandates pushed on you by the state legislators and lobbyists for special interests This reform alone, known as the Shadegg bill, would drop the cost of health care an average of 15%. Not bad. Democrats have spent years opposing this fix.

Second, we need to reform tort law—stop the trial lawyer billionaires from suing your doctor and hospital to push up the costs of your health care. Obama, Reid and Pelosi owe the trial lawyer billionaires a great deal. They cannot say no to them. So no reform there. Some suggest that such reforms would save billions in legal fees but also tens of billions in lower costs of so called “defensive” medicine forced by the trial lawyers.

And lastly, Republicans are putting forward legislation that would require all hospitals to post their actual prices for operations on the Internet so we can shop around—like we do with everything else in life. That would generate real price competition that does not exist in today’s highly regulated health care.

Health care is too expensive in America. That is because it is taxed, regulated and sued too much. We need less government in between us and our doctors. Fewer parasitical trial lawyers and more competition free from government created monopolies.

One government run post office is already too many.

Posted from GOP Leader 

By John Boehner, House Republican Minority Leader — Last night during his address to a joint session of Congress on the topic of health care, President Obama again repeated many claims that simply aren’t true. But despite the President’s rhetoric, the Democrats’ health care bills will force millions of Americans out of their current health care plans, add to the federal deficit, and increase Americans’ health care costs. Following are some of the discredited claims the President repeated last night:

FACT: According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the House Democrats’ bill would increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years. And a recent study by the Lewin Group found that “[i]n the second 10 years…the proposal would add an estimated $1 trillion to the federal deficit.”

CLAIM: “(I)t will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government.”

FACT: As the Associated Press has reported, the Democrats’ plan will increase costs, rather than lower them: “Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf warned lawmakers the legislation that he has seen so far would raise costs, not lower them.”

CLAIM: “If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.”

FACT: The Hill reported yesterday, that the President has not met with House Republicans since April, and when Republican Leaders asked for a meeting to discuss health care in a May 14 letter, the President ignored the request. The Politico reported on the President’s response on June 5, saying, “he makes no mention of the request to meet in the letter, which he signs off by stating, “Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me and I look forward to further discussions on this critically important issue.” But those “further discussions” simply didn’t happen. The facts are clear: blame for the lack of bipartisanship in the current health care debate lies squarely at the feet of Washington Democrats.

CLAIM: “I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are.”

FACT: This is an interesting assertion considering the President also said last night: “Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses; hospitals, seniors’ groups and even drug companies.” So what special interests is he talking about when the White House seems to have struck back room deals with so many of them?

CLAIM: “We’ve estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system – a system that is currently full of waste and abuse.”

FACT: The massive $1.6 trillion House bill’s cost is NOT mostly “paid for” through savings in the existing health care system – not by a long shot. In fact, the House bill includes more than $800 billion in new tax increases during a severe economic downturn on families and employers to “pay for” most of the massive price tag. And, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that even with these tax increases, coupled with other “pay fors” in the bill such as cuts to Medicare, the House bill still has a revenue shortfall that will add $239 billion to the federal deficit over a ten year period. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote in an open letter to Congress raising concerns about a $534 billion small business tax in July: “Even with some exemptions, this provision will kill many jobs. Market forces and employer autonomy should determine what benefits employers provide, rather than Congress.”

CLAIM: “And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up — under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”

FACT: During his quest for the presidency, now-President Obama declared that everyone deserves access to reproductive health care that includes abortion, and vowed that this “right” would be at the heart of his health care reform plan if elected president. President Obama has never retracted this vow, and the health care reform bill moving through the House would help him make good on it if enacted into law. As written, it would allow the U.S. Secretary of Health & Human Services (HHS) to include abortion as a benefit in the government-run health care option. Many Democrats dispute this, pointing to the recent adoption of an amendment sponsored by Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) that would prohibit federal dollars from being used to fund abortion. But under this amendment, the HHS Secretary is explicitly authorized to pay for elective abortions under the government-run insurance plan. Some have also suggested that the government-run plan would not result in government-funded abortions because it will be subject to the “Hyde Amendment,” but this argument is misleading as well. The Hyde Amendment is not a government-wide applied law, but a rather provision included in the annual HHS Appropriations bill, which bans federal funding of elective abortions. According to a memo produced by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the government-option will not be funded through the appropriations process. For this reason, it will not be subject to the Hyde Amendment. The truth of the matter is that the HHS Secretary will be allowed to include abortion as a benefit in the government-run health care plan under the legislation currently moving through the House. Moreover, FactCheck.Org has stated that “House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans.”

CLAIM: “Now, there are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

FACT: The non-partisan Congressional Research Service confirms in a report that there is no mechanism included in the bill to verify that individuals are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants before they receive government benefits. Furthermore, Republicans offered two amendments in the Ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce Committees that were rejected by Democrats. The first would have prevented illegal immigrants from being automatically enrolled into Medicaid and the second would have required better screening for applicants for federally-subsidized health care to ensure they are actually citizens or legal immigrants.

Posted from National Review Online

Set aside Joe Wilson’s bad manners — what about the substance of his accusation? 
 
Mr. Wilson claims that various Democratic proposals wending their way through Congress will use U.S. taxpayer dollars to further subsidize health care for illegal immigrants. Democrats say this is not true, and the back-and-forth continues like this: Democrats say that there is nothing in pending legislation that explicitly covers illegal aliens. Republicans say, “Aha! But we offered amendments that would have specifically required more robust measures to keep illegals out of the system and you voted them down, leaving the back door open!” And Democrats respond, “No, we didn’t. We don’t need that, because Medicare and Medicaid and such already require documentation of legal status.” And then the Democrats will point to this report from that solomonic arbiter of fact, the CNN Truth Squad, which concludes: “A new report finds the bill could require illegal immigrants to buy coverage, but it clearly restricts subsidies to U.S. citizens and legal residents.” 

As Sarah Palin, critics of Van Jones, and those who seek to exclude Cass Sunstein from the collective czardom of the Obama administration have pointed out, there’s what the law says and there’s what the administrative apparatus does. When it comes to the question of whether government-run health-care programs will be used to subsidize illegal aliens, we need not confine ourselves to the realm of the hypothetical and the speculative. Helpfully, the government itself has taken a look at the issue from time to time.

Read the rest of the article