Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.
Half the survey was conducted before the Senate voted late Saturday to begin debate on its version of the legislation. Support for the plan was slightly lower in the half of the survey conducted after the Senate vote.
Prior to this, support for the plan had never fallen below 41%. Last week, support for the plan was at 47%. Two weeks ago, the effort was supported by 45% of voters.
Intensity remains stronger among those who oppose the push to change the nation’s health care system: 21% Strongly Favor the plan while 43% are Strongly Opposed.
Rasmussen Reports is continuing to track public opinion on the health care plan on a weekly basis. Next week’s Monday morning update will give an indication of whether these numbers reflect a trend of growing opposition or are merely statistical noise.
Only 16% now believe passage of the plan will lead to lower health care costs. Nearly four times as many (60%) believe the plan will increase health care costs. Most (54%) also believe passage of the plan will hurt the quality of care.
As has been the case for months, Democrats favor the plan while Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party are opposed. The latest numbers show support from 73% of those in the president’s party. The plan is opposed by 83% of Republicans and 70% of unaffiliated voters.
Among the nation’s senior citizens, 34% favor the health care plan and 60% are opposed. A majority of those under 30 favor the plan, but a majority of all other age groups are opposed (Premium Members can see full demographic crosstabs).
Support for health care has declined along with President Obama’s approval ratings. For the first time in the Obama era, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Approval Indexhas been in negative double digits for nine straight days.
Despite the decline in support for the health care plan, 50% still say it is at least somewhat likely to become law this year. That figure includes 17% who say passage is Very Likely.
While Senate Democrats this weekend assembled enough votes to begin debate on the plan, many challenges remain. All Republican Senators and several Democrats, for example, have expressed opposition to the so-called “public option.” Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters nationwide say guaranteeing that no one is forced to change their health insurance coverage is a higher priority than giving consumers the choice of a “public option” government-run health insurance company. Most liberal voters say giving people the choice of a “public option” is more important. But most moderates take the opposite view and say guaranteeing that no one is forced to change their health insurance is the top priority.
Overall, 46% favor the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan. However, if the plan encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers, support for the public option falls to 29%, and opposition rises to 58%.
As Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, wrote in the Wall Street Journal: “The most important fundamental is that 68% of American voters have health insurance coverage they rate good or excellent. … Most of these voters approach the health care reform debate fearing that they have more to lose than to gain.”
Other challenging issues in the Senate debate include abortion and illegal immigration. Ever since the House’s passage of the Stupak Amendment which says the “public option” would not cover elective abortions and that recipients of federal insurance subsidies could not use them to buy abortion coverage, the divide among Democrats has been visible.
Earlier polling showed that 48% nationwide favored the abortion ban, but most supporters of health care reform didn’t want to address the issue. Just 13% of all voters wanted abortion coverage mandated in the legislation.
On immigration, 83% say that proof of citizenship should be required before anyone can get health care assistance from a government program. Most Democrats while claiming the plan will not cover illegal immigrants are opposed to including a proof-of-citizenship stipulation.
On the eve of Saturday’s showdown in the Senate over health-care reform, Democratic leaders still hadn’t secured the support of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of the 60 votes needed to keep the legislation alive. The wavering lawmaker was offered a sweetener: at least $100 million in extra federal money for her home state.
And so it came to pass that Landrieu walked onto the Senate floor midafternoon Saturday to announce her aye vote — and to trumpet the financial “fix” she had arranged for Louisiana. “I am not going to be defensive,” she declared. “And it’s not a $100 million fix. It’s a $300 million fix.”
It was an awkward moment (not least because her figure is 20 times the original Louisiana Purchase price). But it was fairly representative of a Senate debate that seems to be scripted in the Southern Gothic style. The plot was gripping — the bill survived Saturday’s procedural test without a single vote to spare — and it brought out the rank partisanship, the self-absorption and all the other pathologies of modern politics. If that wasn’t enough of a Tennessee Williams story line, the debate even had, playing the lead role, a Southerner named Blanche with a flair for the dramatic.
After Landrieu threw in her support (she asserted that the extra Medicaid funds were “not the reason” for her vote), the lone holdout in the 60-member Democratic caucus was Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. Like other Democratic moderates who knew a single vote could kill the bill, she took a streetcar named Opportunism, transferred to one called Wavering and made off with concessions of her own. Indeed, the all-Saturday debate, which ended with an 8 p.m. vote, occurred only because Democratic leaders had yielded to her request for more time.
Even when she finally announced her support, at 2:30 in the afternoon, Lincoln made clear that she still planned to hold out for many more concessions in the debate that will consume the next month. “My decision to vote on the motion to proceed is not my last, nor only, chance to have an impact on health-care reform,” she announced.
Landrieu and Lincoln got the attention because they were the last to decide, but the Senate really has 100 Blanche DuBoises, a full house of characters inclined toward the narcissistic. The health-care debate was worse than most. With all 40 Republicans in lockstep opposition, all 60 members of the Democratic caucus had to vote yes — and that gave each one an opportunity to extract concessions from Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid.
U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK), a practicing physician and author of one of the first health care reform bills introduced this year – the Patients’ Choice Act – released the following statement tonight after voting against a procedural motion that will help Congress enact a massive, budget-busting government-run health care bill.
“This bill is the most reckless, irresponsible and dishonest piece of legislation I have seen in my time in Congress. I’m disappointed my colleagues voted for a bill that will bust the budget, increase taxes, coerce taxpayers into funding abortion, and grant politicians and bureaucrats the power to ration and deny medically-necessary care,” Dr. Coburn said.
While many Senators who voted for this measure called it a harmless procedural vote, experts disagree. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, bills that pass procedural tests like the one tonight have a 97.6 percent chance of passing the Senate.
“The accounting tricks in this bill would make Bernie Madoff and Enron executives blush,” Dr. Coburn said. “The bill’s author, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), makes the outlandish claim that this bill ‘saves’ money over ten years. However, he fails to inform the American people that benefits won’t begin for four years while taxes will increase immediately. This would be like a mortgage banker demanding payments for four years before allowing a family to move into their new home. These gimmicks insult the intelligence of every American.”
“Once implemented, the Reid bill will cost at least $2.5 trillion over ten years. Creating a costly new entitlement while we face the risk of a double-dip recession is the height of irresponsibility. Every major government-run health care program is broke or is headed for bankruptcy. Medicare alone faces a long-term debt of $89.3 trillion, which is about six times the size of our entire economy,” Dr. Coburn said. “History shows that great nations collapse over loose fiscal policy, not external threats. The scope of our debt and our reliance on borrowing from potential adversaries, such a China, is a serious national security threat to the United States. This bill will make us more vulnerable and more dependent on excessive and unsustainable borrowing.”
“The bill’s mandate that all Americans must buy insurance is an unconstitutional and unworkable assault on individual liberty and personal responsibility. If this bill passes millions of younger, healthy Americans will saves thousands of dollars every year by dropping coverage until they get sick. The low penalties of not buying coverage in the bill combined with assurances that no one can be denied coverage will push younger and healthier Americans out of the system, leaving older Americans to endure skyrocketing costs,” Dr. Coburn said, noting that eleven studies from government and private sources show health care premiums will increase faster because of the policies in the Reid bill.
“The Reid bill also takes a historic step toward forcing every American taxpayer to finance abortion. The bill gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to include elective abortions in the government-run and taxpayer-funded ‘public option,’ which is a radical departure from the federal government’s current policy of not funding abortion with public funds,” Dr. Coburn said.
“Sadly, this bill’s lack of respect for life doesn’t end with coercing public funding for abortion. The bill gives bureaucrats the ability to deny coverage on the basis of cost, not care. For instance, the bill specifically authorizes the Secretary of HHS to deny payments for prevention services the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has recommended against. This is the same task force that recently suggested women under 50 should not receive annual mammograms. As a practicing physician, such decisions should be made by a doctor and her physician, not a politician or bureaucrat in Washington,” Dr. Coburn said.
The statistics are scary when it comes to the percentage of unborn children born with special needs who become victims of abortion. One fiscal conservative group says the task for parents raising such children is made more difficult by extra taxes found in Harry Reid’s new Senate health care bill.
The measure has already been condemned by pro-life groups and the Catholic bishops for its abortion funding and this latest analysis won’t make it any more endearing.
Ryan Ellis of Americans for Tax Reform notes that the bill contains 18 separate tax increases — one of them targeting parents of disabled children.
“One of them caps the amount that can be deferred in Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs) at $2500 per year (a similar provision was included in the Pelosi-Obama health bill),” Ellis notes.
“There is currently no limit to how much can be saved, though all monies must be used by the end of the year. Employers may put a cap in place for their employees, but this would put a cap in federal tax law for the first time. According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), 30 million American families use an FSA,” he explained.
Most Americans won’t notice a $2,500 cap as FSAs tend to be used for things like small deductibles, co-payments, eyeglasses, over-the-counter medicines, and laser eye surgery.
But parents of special needs children will, he says.
On last night’s radio show, Mark Levin identified four Democratic US Senators that he believes are MOST VULNERABLE in terms of their re-election: Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Ben Nelson (D-NE).
Levin encouraged EVERYONE – regardless of where they live – to contact all four Senators and tell them “if you vote to allow the health care bill to proceed to the floor of the Senate, I will do everything in my power to see you are defeated.”
The best opportunity to kill the health care ‘reform’ bill is on the motion for cloture. A total of requires 60 votes is required for cloture. Once the bill reaches the floor, only 51 votes will be required to pass it.
We have setup a special ACTION PAGE on our website to allow you to easily contact all four of these Senators TODAY. It includes SEND A FAX function that will fax a message to all four Senators with a statement, “I intend to pledge $___against you if you vote in-favor of allowing the health reform bill to come to the floor.”
A vote to allow the bill to proceed is expect THIS SATURDAY – so people must ACT NOW.
Senate Democrats’ newly unveiled healthcare bill could cost as much as $1.6 trillion over the next decade, nearly double the amount the Congressional Budget Office first predicted, a former CBO official said Friday.
In an estimate released this afternoon by the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute (AEI), departed CBO analyst Joseph Antos stressed his former employer’s prediction that the bill would cost $848 billion actually depends on future Medicare cuts and reforms Congress is unlikely to authorize or enforce.
Foremost among those assumptions, Antos said, is the so-called “doc fix” that lawmakers have debated vigorously this fall. The CBO expects changes to Medicare reimbursements payments to hospitals and physicians to save the federal government $245 billion over 10 years, but Antos contends Congress will never pass those rules — and thus, will end up losing money over the long term.
Antos’ AEI report also anticipates Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s bill would increase the deficit by about $270 billion over the next 10 years. While the official CBO score hints the opposite is true, Antos suggests lost or increased payments to Medicare recipients will ultimately shift the healthcare bill’s overall cost curve in the wrong direction.
However, it should be noted that the CBO admitted these limitations in its analysis of Reid’s proposal, released earlier this week.
“These longer-term calculations assume that the provisions are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation,” explained CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf, specifically noting the same concerns about lawmakers’ ability to pass and enforce both the “doc fix” and other Medicare payment provisions.
“The projected longer-term savings for the legislation also assume that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board that would be established by the bill is fairly effective in reducing costs—beyond the reductions that would be achieved by other aspects of the bill—to meet the targets specified in the legislation,” Elmendorf added.
By Senator Jim DeMint — A defining moment is coming in this year’s health care debate.
Yesterday, Democrat leaders announced they may soon bring Harry Reid’s new health care bill to the Senate floor in an effort to grant the President’s wish for a government takeover of our nation’s health care by Christmas. This is in spite of the fact that 99 senators have never seen Reid’s new bill that was written in secret. Reid even hinted he may rush to a vote before the bill’s been public for 72 hours, as even Democrats have demanded.
To begin debate on this new version of Obamacare, Reid will play a shell game. He needs 60 senators to “vote to proceed” to an unrelated piece of legislation, and once he clears that hurdle he will strike that bill’s text and insert his new health care bill. But don’t be fooled by senators that will say they oppose a government takeover but just wanted to allow debate on health care, they are not being honest.
The simple fact is this: Any senator that votes to proceed to the Reid-Obama bill is voting for a government takeover of health care.
Why? Because, President Obama and Harry Reid cannot pass a government takeover without clearing 60 vote procedural hurdles in the Senate — but they also know that vulnerable Democrats likely cannot win reelection if they vote for this unpopular bill. So they want all Democrats to stick together on the vote to proceed, then some Democrats will vote against final passage of the bill and claim they tried to stop it.
Senators who say they just want to allow for debate are trying to deceive their voters while giving President Obama the crucial votes he needs to pass a government takeover of health care.
The best way to turn not just three but many more than three is by sending a message that support for Obamacare is a political death wish, with support pouring into the campaigns of challengers to pro-Obamacare House members from center-right districts.
The House of Representatives squeaked through a health bill on November 7th by a mere five votes, but our biggest battle is still looming – our battle to hold back the Senate. A win in the Senate will prevent the dismantling of American healthcare and the threat to our liberty. Your hard work has helped turn the tide against passage of these dangerous bills. I call upon you now to redouble your efforts and take action as we approach our final fight.
The content of the House bill (H.R. 3962) reveals why this call to action is necessary.
Here’s what the government will require you to do if the bill is enacted:
· Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a “qualified plan.” If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a “grace period” to switch you to a “qualified plan,” meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there’s no grace period. You’ll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.
· Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a “qualified plan” covers and how much you’ll be legally required to pay for it. That’s like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.
On November 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.
· Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the “qualified plan” is not yet designed, it will be of the “one size fits all” variety. The bill claims to offer choice-basic, enhanced and premium levels-but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.
· Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan or risk paying fines.
More Bad News: Porkers Live Off Fat of the Land & Seniors Lose Out
Shockingly, more than half of the House bill has nothing to do with making insurance better or more affordable. Instead, in these pages, billions of dollars are diverted to the creation of new urban welfare and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability. Here are just a few of those pork programs:
· Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community “entities” with no required qualifications except having “documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers” to “educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities” aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. “Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program.”
These programs will “enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health services and health related social services under Federal, State and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility . . . and in receiving services and other benefits” including transportation and translation services.
· Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their “right” to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.
· Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should “give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population.” And secondary-school grants should go to schools “graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities.”
· Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automatic Medicaid enrollment of newborns who do not otherwise have insurance. This provision is separate from the one that makes Medicaid available to all adults with incomes at or below 150% of the federal poverty line – which means about 21% of the entire U.S. population would be eligible for this welfare program.
While pork programs make it possible for more people to live off taxpayer dollars, an estimated $571 billion will be cut in future Medicare funding to offset the tab for the health bill. That’s about a 10% reduction over the next decade, when almost 18 million baby boomers will be turning 65 and entering Medicare! The President insists these cuts won’t affect senior care, but the House bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions. Here’s how:
· Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what’s called a “medical home.”
The medical home is this decade’s version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to “disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis.”
A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that “medical homes” were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control was a priority.
· Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.
· Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.
· Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.
· Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of “medical items and services.”
A government panel of doctors and scientists recommended Monday that women in their forties should not have annual mammograms and older women should reduce their use of the screening device. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concluded that early and frequent breast cancer screenings often lead to false alarms and unneeded biopsies without substantially improving women’s odds of survival.
Nicole Kurokawa, a senior policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum, says the recommendation by the government task force brings the U.S. in line with British policy.
“Unfortunately what Britain has, as a result of their policy, is a 69-percent, five-year survival rate for breast cancer; whereas the U.S. right now has a much better survival rate — our survival rate’s about 84 percent,” she points out. “And that’s really not a system that we want here, particularly with a disease like breast cancer.”
The analyst explains that with breast cancer, early detection is key to survival rates. “And in pushing detection back, what we’re doing is…sending a message that it’s just not important,” she laments.
Kurokawa says the new mammogram advice from the USPSTF reaffirms that when the government is in control of healthcare, Americans are really going to suffer.
In fact, concern has been expressed in media interviews that the new guidelines represent a form of healthcare rationing that puts financial considerations above lives. On Wednesday, Heath and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius tried to distance her agency from the Task Force’s recommendations, stating she would be “very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action.”
The Task Force advises HHS, and its members are appointed by the HHS. None of the current 16 members are oncologists.
As President Obama and Congress craft the largest national health insurance program since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, they insist that the final product will add “not one dime” to the federal deficit.
But cost projections are notoriously unreliable, and history is filled with examples of federal programs – especially in health care – that cost far more than originally predicted.
In 1965, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance program of Medicare – the federal health care program for the elderly and disabled – would cost $9 billion by 1990. The actual cost that year was $67 billion.
In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee said the entire Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion.
In 1987, Congress projected that Medicaid – the joint federal-state health care program for the poor – would make special relief payments to hospitals of less than $1 billion in 1992. Actual cost: $17 billion.
The list goes on. The 1993 cost of Medicare’s home care benefit was projected in 1988 to be $4 billion, but ended up at $10 billion. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which was created in 1997 and projected to cost $5 billion per year, has had to be supplemented with hundreds of millions of dollars annually by Congress.
Barely two weeks in office, Mr. Obama signed a $33 billion bill that will add 4 million mostly low-income children to the SCHIP program over the next 4 1/2 years.
All of these numbers were assembled and published in July by the Senate Joint Economic Committee.
The White House and Democratic leaders insist that the proposed health care reform being debated on Capitol Hill will be different. They also note that the costs of some federal health care programs, including the Medicare prescription-drug program, have come in below projections.
But the official arbiter of costs in Congress, the Congressional Budget Office, hints that comprehensive health care reform could go the way of most other health care initiatives from Washington.
By Dr. Jeffrey Flier — As the dean of Harvard Medical School I am frequently asked to comment on the health-reform debate. I’d give it a failing grade.
Instead of forthrightly dealing with the fundamental problems, discussion is dominated by rival factions struggling to enact or defeat President Barack Obama’s agenda. The rhetoric on both sides is exaggerated and often deceptive. Those of us for whom the central issue is health—not politics—have been left in the lurch. And as controversy heads toward a conclusion in Washington, it appears that the people who favor the legislation are engaged in collective denial.
Our health-care system suffers from problems of cost, access and quality, and needs major reform. Tax policy drives employment-based insurance; this begets overinsurance and drives costs upward while creating inequities for the unemployed and self-employed. A regulatory morass limits innovation. And deep flaws in Medicare and Medicaid drive spending without optimizing care.
Speeches and news reports can lead you to believe that proposed congressional legislation would tackle the problems of cost, access and quality. But that’s not true. The various bills do deal with access by expanding Medicaid and mandating subsidized insurance at substantial cost—and thus addresses an important social goal. However, there are no provisions to substantively control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care. So the overall effort will fail to qualify as reform.
In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it. Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care’s dysfunctional delivery system. The system we have now promotes fragmented care and makes it more difficult than it should be to assess outcomes and patient satisfaction. The true costs of health care are disguised, competition based on price and quality are almost impossible, and patients lose their ability to be the ultimate judges of value.
Worse, currently proposed federal legislation would undermine any potential for real innovation in insurance and the provision of care. It would do so by overregulating the health-care system in the service of special interests such as insurance companies, hospitals, professional organizations and pharmaceutical companies, rather than the patients who should be our primary concern.
In effect, while the legislation would enhance access to insurance, the trade-off would be an accelerated crisis of health-care costs and perpetuation of the current dysfunctional system—now with many more participants. This will make an eventual solution even more difficult. Ultimately, our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all.
By Rep. Michele Bachmann — As unemployment surpasses 10 percent, Congress continues to vow that job creation is a top priority. After the $1.1 trillion stimulus failed to prevent unemployment from rising above 8 percent as its proponents promised, lawmakers are feeling the heat from American families as they struggle to pay for their mortgage, college tuition, and healthcare.
Just last month, 190,000 jobs were lost. All year long, Democrats in Washington have been on a spending spree, claiming that the only way to save the economy from ruin was by spending big. Now House Democrats are using the same excuse to allow the government to take over our nation’s healthcare industry at the steep price tag of $1.3 trillion.
As the House debated the controversial bill late on a Saturday night, Democrats promised that their healthcare reform would help small businesses, lower their premiums, and offer affordable healthcare for all Americans. One of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said it would “strengthen small businesses so they will be critical engines of growth in our communities.” Another lawmaker even went so far as to promise that the government takeover would reduce insurance costs for 14,800 small businesses in his district.
Many supporters of Pelosicare seemed to sympathize with small businesses and the strain that healthcare premiums place on these job creators. This is a noble goal and one that I share. But, it’s exactly why I oppose any legislation that would place the central control of our nation’s healthcare industry into the hands of the federal government. If costs and job growth is their top concern as my colleagues adamantly proclaimed on the House floor, they should also oppose Pelosicare.
Unfortunately, the rhetoric we are hearing does not reflect reality. Research shows that Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) healthcare would not decrease costs for American families and small businesses. How can it when $729.5 billion of new taxes are imposed on the same small businesses and individuals who are already struggling to afford health coverage?
This government takeover of healthcare allows an unprecedented level of government interference. Section 202 of the House bill requires individuals to enroll in a qualified plan. Meanwhile, Section 303 explains this bill does not design the qualified plan. However, small businesses and American families can be certain this bill does design the new taxes and fines to which they will be subjected. Essentially, the American people are being forced to sign on the dotted line and pay for a product they have not yet seen.
Section 202 also provides a “grace period” for businesses to meet the qualified plan. Under this bill, businesses will be forced to reevaluate the benefits they are currently providing and adjust them to the standards created by a new bureaucracy that is unfamiliar with the needs of the company’s employees. If these businesses are unable to afford the new government mandates, they will be subject to an 8 percent payroll tax.
The House-approved healthcare overhaul would raise the costs of healthcare by $289 billion over the next 10 years, according to an analysis by the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
The CMS report is a blow to the White House and House Democrats who have vowed that healthcare reform would curb the growth of healthcare spending. CMS’s analysis is not an apples-to-apples comparison to the cost estimate conducted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) because CMS did not review tax provisions, which help offset the price tag of the Democrats’ measure.
However, the CMS analysis clearly states that the House bill falls short in attaining a key goal of the Democrats’ effort to reform the nation’s healthcare system: “With the exception of the proposed reduction in Medicare… the provisions of H.R. 3962 would not have a significant impact on future healthcare cost growth rates.”
Republicans immediately seized on CMS’s conclusions.
The long-awaited report should serve as a “stark warning to every Republican, Democrat and Independent worried about the future of this nation,” Ways and Means Committee ranking member Dave Camp (R-Mich.) said in a statement on Saturday.
Though House Republicans pressed to have this analysis completed before the lower chamber voted on the Democrats’ sweeping healthcare reform bill last week, it was not ready until late Friday. Chief CMS Actuary Richard Foster, who prepared the report, recently told The Hill that he and his staff had only a few days to review the bill before it was voted on.
Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.
On the eve of Saturday’s showdown in the Senate over health-care reform, Democratic leaders still hadn’t secured the support of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of the 60 votes needed to keep the legislation alive. The wavering lawmaker was offered a sweetener: at least $100 million in extra federal money for her home state.
U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK), a practicing physician and author of one of the first health care reform bills introduced this year – the 
The statistics are scary when it comes to the percentage of unborn children born with special needs who become victims of abortion. One fiscal conservative group says the task for parents raising such children is made more difficult by extra taxes found in Harry Reid’s new Senate health care bill.
On last night’s radio show, 
Senate Democrats’ newly unveiled healthcare bill could cost as much as $1.6 trillion over the next decade, nearly double the amount the Congressional Budget Office first predicted, a former CBO official said Friday.
By Senator Jim DeMint — A defining moment is coming in this year’s health care debate.
The best way to turn not just three but many more than three is by sending a message that support for Obamacare is a political death wish, with support pouring into the campaigns of challengers to pro-Obamacare House members from center-right districts.
The House of Representatives squeaked through a health bill on November 7th by a mere five votes, but our biggest battle is still looming – our battle to hold back the Senate. A win in the Senate will prevent the dismantling of American healthcare and the threat to our liberty. Your hard work has helped turn the tide against passage of these dangerous bills. I call upon you now to redouble your efforts and take action as we approach our final fight. 
By Dr. Jeffrey Flier — As the dean of Harvard Medical School I am frequently asked to comment on the health-reform debate. I’d give it a failing grade.
By Rep. Michele Bachmann — As unemployment surpasses 10 percent, Congress continues to vow that job creation is a top priority. After the $1.1 trillion stimulus failed to prevent unemployment from rising above 8 percent as its proponents promised, lawmakers are feeling the heat from American families as they struggle to pay for their mortgage, college tuition, and healthcare.
The House-approved healthcare overhaul would raise the costs of healthcare by $289 billion over the next 10 years, according to an analysis by the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
Entries (RSS)