From World Net Daily

President Obama’s recently passed health-care reform legislation includes a surprise for many Americans – a beefing up of a U.S. Public Health Service reserve force and expectations that it respond on short notice to “routine public health and emergency response missions,” even involuntarily.

According to Section 5210 of HR 3590, titled “Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps,” the force must be ready for “involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises.”

The health-care legislation adds millions of dollars for recruitment and amends Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204), passed July 1, 1944, during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency. The U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps is one of the seven uniformed services in the U.S. However, Obama’s changes more than double the wording of the Section 203 and dub individuals who are currently classified as officers in the Reserve Corps commissioned officers of the Regular Corps.

The U.S. Public Health Service website describes its commissioned corps as “an elite team of more than 6,000 full-time, well-trained, highly qualified public health professionals dedicated to delivering the nation’s public health promotion and disease prevention programs and advancing public health science.”

According to its mission page, officers of the commissioned corps may:

• Provide essential public health and health care services to underserved and disadvantaged populations

• Prevent and control injury and the spread of disease

• Ensure that the nation’s food supply, drinking water, drugs, medical devices and environment are safe

• Conduct and support cutting-edge research for the prevention, treatment and elimination of disease, health disparities and injury

• Work with other nations and international agencies to address global health challenges

• Provide urgently needed public health and clinical expertise in response to large-scale local, regional and national public health emergencies and disasters

Members are trained to respond to public health situations and national emergency events, such as natural disasters, disease outbreaks and terrorist attacks.

Read the rest of the column.

From Washington Examiner

From the Wall Street Journal

President Barack Obama’s new health-care legislation aims to raise $210 billion over 10 years to pay for the extensive new entitlements. How? By slapping a 3.8% “Medicare tax” on interest and rental income, dividends and capital gains of couples earning more than $250,000, or singles with more than $200,000.

The president also hopes to raise $364 billion over 10 years from the same taxpayers by raising the top two tax rates to 36%-39.6% from 33%-35%, plus another $105 billion by raising the tax on dividends and capital gains to 20% from 15%, and another $500 billion by capping and phasing out exemptions and deductions.

It won’t work. It never works.

The maximum tax rate fell to 28% in 1988-90 from 50% in 1986, yet individual income tax receipts rose to 8.3% of GDP in 1989 from 7.9% in 1986. The top tax rate rose to 31% in 1991 and revenue fell to 7.6% of GDP in 1992. The top tax rate was increased to 39.6% in 1993, along with numerous major revenue enhancers such as raising the taxable portion of Social Security to 85% of benefits from 50% for seniors who saved or kept working. Yet individual tax revenues were only 7.8% of GDP in 1993, 8.1% in 1994, and did not get back to the 1989 level until 1995.

Punitive tax rates on high-income individuals do not increase revenue. Successful people are not docile sheep just waiting to be shorn.

Read the rest of the column.

From Yahoo News

It perhaps was not the endorsement President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress were looking for.

Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform “a miracle” and a major victory for Obama’s presidency, but couldn’t help chide the United States for taking so long to enact what communist Cuba achieved decades ago.

“We consider health reform to have been an important battle and a success of his (Obama’s) government,” Castro wrote in an essay published in state media, adding that it would strengthen the president’s hand against lobbyists and “mercenaries.”

But the Cuban leader also used the lengthy piece to criticize the American president for his lack of leadership on climate change and immigration reform, and for his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, among many other things.

And he said it was remarkable that the most powerful country on earth took more than two centuries from its founding to approve something as basic as health benefits for all.

“It is really incredible that 234 years after the Declaration of Independence … the government of that country has approved medical attention for the majority of its citizens, something that Cuba was able to do half a century ago,” Castro wrote.

The longtime Cuban leader — who ceded power to his brother Raul in 2008 — has continued to pronounce his thoughts on world issues though frequent essays, titled “Reflections,” which are published in state newspapers.

Read the rest of the column.

From OneNewsNow

By David Smith: Like many Americans across the nation, I watched intensely as Congress debated and ultimately passed the onerous healthcare “reform” bill Sunday evening. One main point of contention is the idea — affirmed by some radically “progressive” lawmakers — that healthcare is a “right.” This is nothing short of socialistic propaganda.  

The implicit claim in the assertion that healthcare is a “right” is that it is a constitutionally protected right. All experts agree that healthcare is neither a constitutional nor a legal right. In America we understand that our rights to the free exercise of religion, to speak freely, to bear arms, and to be secure from unwarranted search and seizure come from God.
 
To see the difference in government-mandated healthcare and real rights, look at how they are exercised. Historically, American citizens have been free to exercise their real, constitutionally protected rights — or not — as they see fit.
 
For example, the government does not compel citizens to attend church in the name of religious freedom. The government does not compel citizens to own a gun in the name of the Second Amendment. And the government does not force citizens to engage in the political process in the name of free speech.
 
In contrast, our radically “progressive” friends are eager to compel every American using the heavy hand of government to exercise their so-called “right” to healthcare. Should we celebrate the passage of a bill that in the service of non-existent rights actually diminishes our liberty?
 
What is really at issue is not whether healthcare is a “right,” but whether citizens have a right to taxpayer-funded healthcare. What other cherished American “right” has ever required that we diminish another’s liberty? Does the right to free speech require newspaper owners to print every op-ed and editorial? Does the right to bear arms require the government to arm its citizenry? Does the freedom of religion require government-funding of churches, mosques, and synagogues? Of course not!
 
Why then, does this “right” to healthcare require the government to take from some to give to others? When in the history of our country have we had to secure a right by trampling on the liberties of others?
 
Make no mistake…that is exactly what is happening with this government takeover of the healthcare industry. This new healthcare “right” will be forced on every American; and it will be made possible — in the words of Karl Marx — by taking from citizens “according to their ability” and giving to others “according to their needs.”
 
According to U.S. Representative John Boehner (R-Ohio), this legislation will create 160 new governmental boards, commissions, and mandates, and will require $500 billion in tax increases to pay for it. Of course, that will be only the beginning, as additional taxpayer funds will most certainly be needed.
 
Healthcare lawyer and policy analyst John S. Hoff illuminates the troubling questions left unanswered by the phrase “right to healthcare,” which he argues “does not address the relevant issues that must be considered in considering taxpayer subsidies for healthcare”:

• How much healthcare is to be paid for by the taxpayer, for what beneficiaries, and under what circumstances? Does it include the most advanced or experimental treatment?
• Indeed, what is healthcare? Long-term care? What are the parameters of self-responsibility? Should there be taxpayer subsidies for smokers, drug abusers, and dare-devils?
• And which taxpayers should be paying? Should the working young and low-income workers subsidize the healthcare costs of those who are wealthier and sicker?and they are camouflaged 
• These are political judgments that we have barely addressed, by invocation of a broad principle of a “right” to healthcare.

President Obama and many in Congress are celebrating the passage of this ominous legislation — legislation that forces American citizens into the newly created, socialized healthcare system. Sadly, the costs of this new government program are much higher than we think. Although the financial cost to taxpayers is substantial, the cost to personal liberty is incalculable.

From the American Spectator

By William Tucer.  Two weeks ago we smashed the side view mirror on our car and had to take it to the shop. We paid $250 for a replacement.

This week I went to my dermatologist to see if I had developed any more skin cancers (red hair and all that). The doctor took a biopsy on one spot and sent if off to the lab. If it’s malignant, I’ll have to go back and have a bigger chunk of my cheek removed. The cost of all this? Zero.

This simple comparison illustrates why healthcare “reform,” as Congress has just adopted it, will probably bankrupt the country.

As far as auto insurance is concerned, we have it like almost everyone else. It covers major damage. A year ago I was in a fender-bender. The insurance paid a small portion of the repairs. Several years ago, we bought my son a car and — typically — he nearly totaled it within a week. The insurance company paid an astounding $8,000 in repairs but our premiums tripled and we spent several years paying the penalty. That’s what “underwriting” is about. After one accident you get moved into a higher risk category. It’s what you might call a “pre-existing condition.”

At the auto shop, the mechanics have high school backgrounds with two or three years of on-the-job training and use basic hydraulic lifts and wrenches. I pay them $250 for parts and an hour of labor. At the doctor’s office, the person who serves me has done four years of medical school plus another three or four years of hospital residency and uses sophisticated equipment. The lab that does the biopsy will have the latest technology. Yet because I have a part-time job with a major employer, I receive union “health benefits” that pay for everything. I would be happy to pay $80-100 for my visits to the dermatologist. After all, I pay a plumber $50 just to come to my house and look at my leaking sink. But because politicians like Nancy Pelosi have convinced people that even a $20 co-payment is an “insurance company rip-off,” I get my medical services for free.

Not that I am unaware of the dangers of falling out of this system and going uninsured. A few years ago I didn’t have coverage and was paying $500 apiece for these minor office procedures.       

As John Goodman and Robert Musgrave wrote in their brilliant analysis, Patient Power (written in 1994 and still the best critique around), what we are calling “health insurance” is not insurance at all. It is prepaid medical benefits. Insurance is a way of pooling the risk for major expenses — the kind you incur when you have an auto accident or suffer a serious illness. Prepaid benefit plans try to cover all medical expenses, no matter how small.

No insurance company could possibly provide auto insurance that paid the bills every time you changed a tire. The premiums would be impossibly expensive and people would abuse the system, running to the auto shop every time they felt they needed new windshield wipers or suffered a dent in their bumper. Likewise, no insurance company offers policies with 100 percent coverage of all medical bills. The premiums would be impossibly expensive and people would run to the doctor every time they had a sniffle or suffered a cut finger.

Instead, prepaid benefits plans were pioneered by the major corporations and their labor unions, plus federal, state and local governments and their labor unions, which are now the majority of union members and one of the principle players in this melodrama. Taking advantage of an IRS ruling that health and retirement benefits could not be taxed as income, major corporations and governments began funneling tax-free dollars to their employees as “greater take-home pay.” Instead of income, employees got first-dollar coverage of all medical bills with no co-payments and no deductibles. In other words, medical care was “free.” And of course people began to treat it that way. Writing in 1994, Goodman and Musgrave argued that it was all these people flooding into the system with cost-free health benefits that was driving up medical prices.

What corporations, governments and their unions had created was a mini-welfare state. We all know what happens to welfare states. When General Motors went under this year, it was lamenting that every car that came off the line had $1,500 in employee and retiree health benefits on board. When President Clinton tried to “reform” healthcare in the 1990s, one of the central initiatives was that the bloated healthcare commitments made by major corporations would be off-loaded onto the government.

Practically every state and local government in the country has the same unfunded employee pension and health benefits threatening them with bankruptcy. Medicaid is working the same way and now consumes 25 percent of state budgets. And of course the granddaddy of all is Medicare, which now has unfunded liabilities of $90 trillion over the next seventy years and will only be payable if the dollar loses about 80 percent of its value.

So what has Congress decided to do in order to “reform” this system? Instead of getting a grip benefits and substituting a policy of health insurance, the Democrats have decided to extend the same unrealistic benefits to everybody.

Read the rest of the column.

From AJC

Florida AG Bill McCollum

Attorneys general from 13 states sued the federal government Tuesday, claiming the landmark health care overhaul is unconstitutional just seven minutes after President Barack Obama signed it into law.  The lawsuit was filed in Pensacola after the Democratic president signed the 10-year, $938 billion bill the House passed Sunday night.

“The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage,” the lawsuit says.

Legal experts say it has little chance of succeeding because, under the Constitution, federal laws trump state laws.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum is taking the lead and is joined by attorneys general from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Michigan, Utah, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota, Idaho, Washington, Colorado and Louisiana. All are Republicans except James “Buddy” Caldwell of Louisiana, a Democrat.

Some states are considering separate lawsuits — Virginia filed its own Tuesday — and still others may join the multistate suit. In Michigan, the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, a Christian legal advocacy group, sued on behalf of itself and four people it says don’t have private health insurance and object to being told they have to purchase it.

McCollum, who is running for governor, argues the bill will cause “substantial harm and financial burden” to the states.

The lawsuit claims the bill violates the 10th Amendment, which says the federal government has no authority beyond the powers granted to it under the Constitution, by forcing the states to carry out its provisions but not reimbursing them for the costs.

It also says the states can’t afford the new law. Using Florida as an example, the lawsuit says the overhaul will add almost 1.3 million people to the state’s Medicaid rolls and cost the state an additional $150 million in 2014, growing to $1 billion a year by 2019.

“We simply cannot afford to do the things in this bill that we’re mandated to do,” McCollum said at a press conference after filing the suit. He said the Medicaid expansion in Florida will cost $1.6 billion.

“That’s not possible or practical to do in our state,” he said. “It’s not realistic, it’s not right, and it’s very, very wrong.”

South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, who is also running for governor, said the lawsuit was necessary to protect his state’s sovereignty.

“A legal challenge by the states appears to be the only hope of protecting the American people from this unprecedented attack on our system of government,” he said.

Read the rest of the column.

U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (MN-06) issued the following statement today after introducing legislation to repeal the Democrats’ government takeover of health care:

“It’s no secret, President Obama and Democrat leaders have ignored the will of the people and have chosen to ram through their trillion-dollar health care bill despite the American people’s overwhelming objection to it.

“It’s future generations, our children and grandchildren who will pay the price for our government’s arrogance and recklessness, and the American people won’t ever forget the irresponsible actions of this Administration and Democratic Majority. After all, government answers to the people, not the other way around. I’m asking my colleagues to join me in repealing this monstrosity of a bill.”

Click here to view the legislation .

From Investor’s Business Daily

By BETSY McCAUGHEY. By Demagogue — a word of Greek origin — means a person who uses falsehoods, prejudices and emotional appeals to gain power. Huey Long, governor of Louisiana from 1928 to 1932, U.S. senator from 1932 to 1935 and creator of the Share Our Wealth Program, fit that definition.

Long stirred crowds with fiery denunciations of corporate greed. Ultimately, even fellow Democrats grew alarmed and backed away from his legislation.

Demagogue also describes how President Obama revved up crowds as he crisscrossed the country selling his health legislation.

“A big part of our campaign,” he told audiences in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Missouri, “was about changing the way Washington works — including the responsibility to live within its means. Over the last year, we’ve gone through the budget line-by-line looking for places to trim the fat out of government.”

The truth is, as soon as he took office, the president signed bills that flooded the nation with new spending, resulting in a fiscal 2009 budget 19% above the previous year.

He also promised audiences that “for the first time, uninsured individuals and small businesses will have the same kind of choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get.”

That’s not true. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, members of Congress “enjoy the widest selection of health plans in the country and can choose from health savings accounts, catastrophic plans with high deductibles, fee-for-service plans, preferred provider plans and HMOs.”

Read the rest of the column.

From Gary Bauer

Last night, Democrats passed ObamaCare by a vote of 219-to-212. The most bi-partisan aspect of the bill was the opposition to it. Republicans voted unanimously against it and they were joined by 34 Democrats. This bill raises taxes by more than $500 billion. It imposes new taxes on investments and new fines on businesses. It imposes unconstitutional mandates on Americans and funds abortion. And the Democrats own it entirely. This is what happens when liberals get power.

In a weekend of outrageous statements, the worst was to hear Obama and Pelosi describing their takeover of nearly 20% of our economy in the language of liberty. They cloaked one of the biggest expansions of government and retractions of liberty in our nation’s history in conservative rhetoric. For example, Nancy Pelosi hailed the vote as “great act of patriotism.”

After the House vote, President Obama said, “We proved that this government — a government of the people and by the people — still works for the people.” But the American people didn’t want this bill. The latest Rasmussen poll found that likely voters opposed it 41%-to-54%. In fact, there is not a single poll the president or congressional Democrats can point to in the past 60 days that shows public support for the legislation that passed last night.

Republicans did everything in their power to stop socialized medicine. The reconciliation process that Democrats used to circumvent Republican efforts is proof of that. And while Democrats are celebrating today, they have damaged our democratic republic in the process. The bill was written behind closed doors. Committee hearings were a charade. It passed the Senate not because of the legislation’s merits, but because of special deals and kickbacks. Until the national uproar, Democrats had planned on passing it without even voting on it.

When a Republican doesn’t vote consistently for conservative principles, we call him a RINO – a Republican In Name Only. I don’t know what you call a Democrat who betrays his core principles, but this bill should be called the “Stupak Abortion Subsidy Act.”

Rep. Bart Stupak has been elected to Congress as a Democrat since 1992 in a relatively conservative district. But he was always pro-life. Yesterday, Stupak sold out his pro-life values for an executive order from the most pro-abortion president in history. An executive order cannot override legislation. That’s why the Hyde Amendment was so important and has been reaffirmed by every Congress for more than 30 years. The Senate bill funds abortion, which is why Stupak consistently said he was a “No” vote until the very end.

My friends, there’s no way to sugar coat this. Last night’s vote was a major set back – just one of many negative consequences of recent elections. Obama said recently that he was going to wear us down. The Democrats aren’t done. Immigration “reform” is next. This is gut check time for conservatives.

What is the solution? There is only one: We must win elections. But please do not email me asking about impeachment. Impeachment is a political process conducted by Congress, and liberal Democrats – Obama’s allies – dominate Congress. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are not going impeach Barack Obama.

If you don’t like the policies coming out of Washington today, the solution is to change the politicians making them. That means contributing to conservative groups and supporting conservative candidates, staying united against the Left, outworking the liberals and outvoting them on Election Day.

Now if your reaction is to throw your hands up in despair, give up and walk away, then Obama has worn you down. But if your reaction is to recommit to the values we cherish and fight even harder in the political arena, then it’s not too late to take back our country and make America the “shining city upon a hill” our Founding Fathers envisioned. I’m not giving up and I pray you will continue to stand with me!

From the Washington Examiner

From Washington Examiner

From OneNewsNow

Some House Democrats are apparently selling their vote on healthcare reform for jobs at places like NASA — but they’re receiving a stern warning from one conservative senator about the ramifications of such behavior.

Human Events reports that retiring Congressman Bart Gordon (D-Tennessee) has been promised the job of NASA administrator in exchange for his vote — and that Representative John Tanner, another retiring Democrat, has been promised an appointment as a U.S. ambassador to NATO in exchange for his vote.
 
When at the White House recently, Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas (D-Florida) also reportedly was seeking a special NASA deal in exchange for a “yes” vote on healthcare.
 
On Thursday, Senator Tom Coburn (R- Oklahoma) told House Democrats who voted against the legislation the first time that they had better “be prepared” to defend selling their vote in the House.
 
“If you voted no and you vote yes, and you lose your election, and you think [your] nomination to a federal position isn’t going to be held in the Senate, I’ve got news for you — it’s going to be held,” Coburn vowed.
 
“Number two is, if you get a deal, a parochial deal for you or your district, I’ve already instructed my staff and the staff of seven other senators that we will look at every appropriations bill at every level, at every instance, and we will outline it by district — and we will associate that with the buying of your vote.
 
“So if you think you can cut a deal now and it not come out until after the election,” he concluded, “I want to tell you that isn’t going to happen — and be prepared to defend selling your vote in the House.”
 
Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) has asked the House to remove a provision from the health bill allowing the state-owned Bank of North Dakota to continue receiving federal student loan subsidies, even though the program would be eliminated for other banks. Conrad asked for the special deal to be dumped after Republicans called the provision the “Bismarck Bank Job.”

From the Cato Institute

By Michael D. Tanner: The crystal ball is still far too cloudy to predict whether or not Obamacare will pass, but it is not too soon to make some predictions about what the future will look like if it does pass.

The bill will cost more than advertised. It won’t be long before Congress is shocked — shocked! — to discover that health-care reform is going to cost a lot more than expected. It’s not just the budgetary gimmicks that Democrats have been employing to hide the bill’s true cost. It’s also that government programs — and government health-care programs in particular — almost always end up exceeding their cost estimates.

For example, when Medicare was instituted in 1965, it was estimated that the cost of Medicare Part A would be $9 billion by 1990. In actuality, it was seven times higher — $67 billion. Similarly, in 1987, Medicaid’s special hospitals subsidy was projected to cost $100 million annually by 1992, just five years later; it actually cost $11 billion, more than 100 times as much. And in 1988, when Medicare’s home-care benefit was established, the projected cost for 1993 was $4 billion, but the actual cost in 1993 was $10 billion.

Insurance premiums will keep rising. The president has tried to convince people that health-care reform will cut their insurance costs. They are in for a surprise. According to the Congressional Budget Office, insurance premiums will double in the next few years. The bill will do nothing to diminish that increase. In fact, for the millions of Americans who get their insurance through the individual market, rather than from an employer, this bill will raise premiums by 10–13 percent more than if we do nothing. Young and healthy people can expect their premiums to go up even more.

The quality of care will be worse. Doctors’ reimbursements for providing care will be squeezed, making it harder to find a doctor. A new survey in the New England Journal of Medicine reports that 46 percent of doctors may give up their practice in the wake of this bill. While that is probably exaggerated, many doctors will likely decide to reduce their patient loads or retire. At the same time, increased demand will create additional problems.

In Massachusetts, after the passage of Romneycare, the wait to see a primary-care physician increased from 33 to 52 days. Research and development will also be cut back, meaning there will be fewer new drugs and other medical breakthroughs. And the government will increasingly intervene in medical decision making, micromanaging medical decisions and deciding what treatments are most effective or, frighteningly, most cost-effective.

The Left will keep pushing for more. Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s inner censor was clearly on the fritz this week when she said, “Once we kick through this door, there’ll be more legislation to follow.” Faced with rising costs and higher premiums, not to mention millions still uninsured, Democrats will blame the “evil” insurance companies and demand further reform. They will argue that we tried “moderate” reform and failed. Pelosi could no longer keep a lid on what the hard Left has been restraining itself from saying all along: It sees this legislation as the perfect first step in the long march to universal single-payer health care.

Republicans won’t really try to repeal it. Republicans will run this fall on a promise to repeal this deeply unpopular bill, and will likely reap the political advantages of that promise. But in reality there is little chance of their following through. Even if Republicans were to take both houses of Congress, they would still face a presidential veto and a Democratic filibuster.

But more important, once an entitlement is in place, it becomes virtually impossible to take away. The fact that Republicans have been criticizing Obamacare for cutting Medicare shows that they are not really willing to take the heat for cutting people’s benefits once they have them — no matter how unaffordable those benefits are. Paul Ryan put forth a serious plan for entitlement reform — and attracted just six co-sponsors at last count. Enough said.

As Scrooge asked in A Christmas Carol, “Are these the shadows of the things that will be, or are they shadows of things that may be?” By Sunday night, we should know.