Democrats think they know how to run the insurance industry better than the insurance industry, and they’re getting the chance to prove it under ObamaCare. Consider the early returns on its plan to insure Americans denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.
To judge by President Obama’s rhetoric, the insurance industry’s victims have been wandering the country like Okies in “The Grapes of Wrath.” Thus ObamaCare gave the Health and Human Services Department the power to design and sell its own insurance policies. The $5 billion program started in July and runs through 2014, when ObamaCare’s broader regulations kick in.
Mr. Obama declared at the time that “uninsured Americans who’ve been locked out of the insurance market because of a pre-existing condition will now be able to enroll in a new national insurance pool where they’ll finally be able to purchase quality, affordable health care—some for the very first time in their lives.”
So far that statement accurately describes a single person in North Dakota. Literally, one person has signed up out of 647,000 state residents. Four people have enrolled in West Virginia. Things are better in Minnesota, where Mr. Obama has rescued 15 out of 5.2 million, and also in Indiana—63 people there. HHS did best among the 24.7 million Texans. Thanks to ObamaCare, 393 of them are now insured.
States had the option of designing their own pre-existing condition insurance with federal dollars in lieu of the HHS plan, and 27 chose to do so. But they haven’t had much more success. Combined federal-state enrollment is merely 8,011 nationwide as of November 1, according to HHS.
Rep. Dave Camp, ranking Republican of the House Ways and Means Committee, has compiled this list of when different aspects of the recently passed healthcare legislation will go into effect. Click here for a PDF version of the document.
2009
2-year tax credit (total cap of $1 billion) for new chronic disease therapy investments
Medicare cuts to hospitals begin (long-term care (7/1/09) and inpatient and rehabilitation facilities (fiscal 2010)) 2009
2010
States and federal officials review premium increases
FDA authorized to approve “follow-on” biologics
Increase brand name pharmaceutical Medicaid rebate (from 15.1% to 23.1%)
Medicare payments to physicians in primarily rural areas increase (2 years)
Deny “black liquor” eligibility for cellulosic biofuel producers credit
Tax credits provided to certain small employers for health care-related expenses
Increase adoption tax incentives for 2 years
Codify economic substance doctrine and impose penalties for underpayments (transactions on/after 3/23/10)
Provide income exclusion for specified Indian tribe health benefits provided after 3/23/10
Temporary high-risk pool and high-cost union retiree reinsurance ($5 billion each for 3.5 years) (6/23/10)
Impose 10% tax on indoor UV tanning (7/1/10)
Medicare cuts to inpatient psych hospitals (7/1/10)
Prohibits lifetime and annual benefit spending limits (plan years beginning 9/23/10)
Prohibits non-group plans from canceling coverage (rescissions) (plan years beginning 9/23/10)
Requires plans to cover, at no charge, most preventive care (plan years beginning 9/23/10)
Allows dependents to stay on parents’ policies through age 26 (plan years beginning 9/23/10)
Provides limited protections to children with pre-existing conditions (plan years beginning 9/23/10)
Prohibition on Medicare payments to new physician-owned hospitals
Penalties for non-qualified HSA and Archer MSA distributions double (to 20%)
Seniors prohibited from purchasing power wheelchairs unless they first rent for 13 months
Brand name drug companies begin providing 50% discount in the Part D “donut holeâ€
10% Medicare bonus payment for primary care and general surgery (5 years)
Employers required to report value of health benefits on W-2
Steps towards health insurance administrative simplification (reduced paperwork, etc) begins (five year process)
Additional funding for community health centers (five years)
Seniors who hit Part D “donut hole “in 2010 receive $250 check (3/15/11)
New Medicare cuts to long-term care hospitals begin (7/1/11)
Additional Medicare cuts to hospitals and cuts to nursing homes and inpatient rehab facilities begin (fiscal 2012)
New tax on all private health insurance policies to pay for comp. eff. research (plan years beginning fiscal 2012)
2012
Medicare cuts to dialysis treatment begins
Require information reporting on payments to corporations
Medicare to reduce spending by using an HMO-like coordinated care model (Accountable Care Organizations)
Medicare Advantage plans with a 4 or 5 star rating receive a quality bonus payment
New Medicare cuts to inpatient psych hospitals (7/1/12)
Hospital pay-for-quality program begins (fiscal 2013)
Medicare cuts to hospitals with high readmission rates begin (fiscal 2013)
Medicare cuts to hospice begin (fiscal 2013)
2013
Impose $2,500 annual cap on FSA contributions (indexed to CPI)
Increase Medicare wage tax by 0.9% and impose a new 3.8% tax on unearned, nonactive business income for those earning over $200,000 or $250,000 for families (not indexed to inflation)
Generally increases (7.5% to 10%) threshold at which medical expenses, as a percentage of income, can be deductible
Eliminate deduction for Part D retiree drug subsidy employers receive
Impose 2.3% excise tax on medical devices
Medicare cuts to hospitals which treat low-income seniors begin
Post-acute pay for quality reporting begins
CO-OP Program: Secretary of Health and Human Services awards loans and grants for establishing nonprofit health insurers
$500,000 deduction cap on compensation paid to insurance company employees and officers
Part D “donut hole†reduction begins, reaching a 25% reduction by 2020
2014
Individuals without government-approved coverage are subject to a tax of the greater of $695 or 2.5% of income
Employers who fail to offer “affordable” coverage would pay a $3,000 penalty for every employee that receives a subsidy through the Exchange
Employers who do not offer insurance must pay a tax penalty of $2,000 for every full-time employee
More Medicare cuts to home health begin
States must have established Exchanges
Employers with more than 200 employees can auto-enroll employees in health coverage, with opt-out
All non-grandfathered and Exchange health plans required to meet federally mandated levels of coverage
States must cover parents /childless adults up to 138% of poverty on Medicaid, receive increased FMAP
Tax credits available for Exchange-based coverage, amount varies by income up to 400% of poverty
Insurers cannot impose any coverage restrictions on pre-existing conditions (guaranteed issue/renewability)
Modified community rating: individual or family coverage; geography; 3:1 ratio for age; 1.5:1 for smoking
Insurers must offer coverage to anyone wanting a policy and every policy has to be renewed
Limits out-of-pocket cost-sharing (tied to limits in HSAs, currently $5,950/$11,900 indexed to COLA)
Insurance plans must include government-defined “essential benefits ” and coverage levels
OPM must offer at least two multi-state plans in every state
Employers can offer some employees free choice vouchers for health insurance in the Exchange
Government board (IPAB) begins submitting proposals to cut Medicare
Impose tax on nearly all private health insurance plans
Medicare payment cuts for hospital-acquired infections begin (fiscal 2015)
2015
More Medicare cuts to home health begin
2016
States can form interstate insurance compacts if the coverage with HHS approval (2016)
2017
Physician pay-for-quality program begins for all physicians
States may allow large employers and multi-employer health plans to purchase coverage in the Exchange.
States may apply to the HHS secretary for a limited waiver from certain federal requirements
2018
Impose “Cadillac tax on “high cost†plans, 40% tax on the benefit value above a certain threshold: ($10,200 individual coverage, $27,500 family or self-only union multi-employer coverage)
By Byron York — A new Gallup poll shows that a majority of Americans believes Democrats abused their power by using procedural shortcuts and controversial parliamentary tactics to pass the new national health care makeover. And in a striking finding, slightly more people blame the Democrats’ tactics than Republican criticism for the threats of violence and vandalism that were reported after the bill’s passage.
The poll asked, “Regardless of whether you favored or opposed the health care legislation Congress passed this past week, do you think the methods the Democratic leaders in Congress used to get enough votes to pass this legislation were an abuse of power or were an appropriate use of power by the party that controls the majority in Congress?” The results: 53 percent say the Democrats’ methods were an abuse of power, while 40 percent say they were appropriate.
Breaking down the results by party, 86 percent of Republicans say the Democrats abused their power, while 58 percent of independents agree. Nineteen percent of Democrats say their own leaders abused their power, while 70 percent say Democratic methods were appropriate.
Next, the poll asked, “Do you think each of the following is a major reason, a minor reason, or not a reason these threats and acts of vandalism occurred?” Respondents were asked to consider three possibilities: “controversial political maneuvers by Democratic leaders to get the votes needed to pass the health care legislation,” “harsh criticism of the health care bill from conservative commentators on radio and television,” and “harsh criticism of the health care bill from Republican leaders.” Forty-nine percent said the Democrats’ maneuvering was a major reason, while 25 percent said it was a minor reason and 22 percent said it was not a reason. Forty-six percent said conservative commentary was a major reason, versus 26 percent who said it was a minor reason and 23 percent said it was not a reason. And 43 percent said Republican leaders were a major reason, versus 29 percent who said they were a minor reason and 23 percent who said they were not a reason.
The new numbers suggest that the public remains troubled by the tactics used to pass the unpopular health care measure. And they suggest that Rep. David Dreier, the ranking Republican on the House Rules Committee, was right when he said, at the time of the bill’s passage, “The American people have gotten the message that process is substance.” The usual conventional wisdom says process is simply not important, but the health care debate seems to be an exception.
Remember the Enron scandal in 2001, which drove a bipartisan majority in Congress to demand far-reaching reforms in corporate accounting? Democrats have discovered this week that maybe they can’t handle the truth — at least not when it exposes the real economic effect of Obamacare on private sector companies large and small. Thousands of employees, their families and retirees get their health insurance coverage through firms that are now having to figure out how to cope with government-run health care.
On Capitol Hill and in the White House on Monday, Democrats were fuming over a series of announcements that started Friday from Fortune 500 firms saying their bottom lines will take huge negative hits because of changes in tax law mandated by Obamacare. That hit in turn means lower profit projections. Caterpillar estimates, for example, that Obamacare will cost it $100 million; John Deere faces expenses of $150 million; 3M, $90 million; AK Steel, $31 million; Valero, $20 million. And then there’s AT&T, which is marking its balance sheet down by a whopping $1 billion. All in all, the Wall Street Journal estimated a $14 billion haircut for these corporations.
Under post-Enron accounting rules, the corporations were required to revise their projections to account for the effect of Obamacare on their bottom lines. The effect is negative because Democrats, in their zeal to raise revenues and improve Obamacare’s claimed effect on the federal deficit outlook, took away a tax break these companies needed in order to supply prescription drugs to their retirees. The tax subsidy, itself a government accounting ruse crafted in 2003 by the Republican Bush administration to dissuade corporations from dumping their retiree drug benefit programs on the then-new Medicare Part D, becomes taxable under Obamacare. Corporations are now being reminded of the harsh truth: What Big Government giveth, Big Government taketh away, too.
According to the American Spectator, top White House advisers reacted with angry phone calls to the corporations in question. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., issued harassing document requests and demanded that the chief executive officers appear before his committee next month to answer for their sins. These corporations, which legally owe an honest reckoning to their shareholders, are only doing their duty by restating projections. By contrast, Waxman and many of his fellow Democratic leaders in Congress have used every government accounting and budget gimmick at their disposal to deceive Americans for the last year about the true costs of Obamacare. These Washington politicians have no business lecturing CEOs on honesty in accounting.
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.â€
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.â€
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!
Well, they finally did it. Despite more than a year of steadily rising public opposition, manifested in opinion polls and in protest rallies across the country, President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi finally rammed through Obamacare late Sunday when House Democrats gave the bill their imprimatur.
The House vote isn’t the end of the national debate on this issue, however, as the Senate still must accept the House changes in the Senate Obamacare bill. Senate Republicans argue that the House reconciliation bill that makes significant changes in the Senate bill violates the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, maintaining that it should be ruled out of order by the Senate parliamentarian for consideration in the upper chamber. That in turn would mean the only bill the president could legally sign would be the original Senate bill, with its massive funding of abortion and the infamous deals used to buy senators’ votes, including the Cornhusker Kickback. At that point, a constitutional crisis of historic magnitude seems inevitable.
Here’s why: Never before in American history has a measure of such importance been imposed on the country by the majority party over the unanimous opposition of the minority. Democrats have continually sought to create a halo effect for Obamacare by associating it with Social Security and Medicare. But the reality is that both of those landmark programs were approved with strong bipartisan support in both the Senate and House. The Senate vote on Social Security in 1935 was 77-6, with 64 Democrats being joined by 14 Republicans. In the House, the 373 votes for Social Security included 77 Republicans. When Medicare passed in 1965, the 68-21 Senate vote included 13 Republicans, while 65 Republicans were among the 313 affirmative House votes. Such bipartisan consensus was what the Founders sought with the Constitution. But Democrats made a mockery of bipartisanship by shoving Obamacare down the throats of Republican lawmakers and snubbing the popular majority that opposed it. The Democrats have undercut the credibility of the law they created.
A fast-track challenge to Obamacare’s constitutionality will likely reach the Supreme Court in coming months. The justices will have multiple issues to consider, including the unprecedented federal mandate that all individuals buy approved health insurance, the undeniable inequity of the many corrupt bargains used to buy votes for the measure, and the banana republic parliamentary tactics used by the Democratic congressional leadership. Whatever the high court’s decision, it won’t be nearly as unpleasant as the verdict many Democrats will hear from their constituents in November.
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.
Â
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.
Â
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.
Â
“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.
Â
“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.”
Â
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.”
Republican Senator Orrin Hatch said Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are “nuts†to think tomorrow’s vote on health-care legislation will resolve the issue.
If the measure passes, Senate Republicans have enough votes on at least two points of order to alter the measure and send it back to the House for a second round of votes, Hatch said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,†airing this weekend.
“If those people think they’re only going to vote on this once, they’re nuts,†Hatch said as House Democratic leaders rounded up support before the scheduled vote on President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority.
The senator from Utah also said the approach Democrats are using to pass the legislation in the House may be unconstitutional because the House and Senate aren’t voting on “exactly the same language.â€
Rep. Paul Ryan (R, Wisconsin) offers his opening comments in the Reconciliation Markup House Budget Committee on March 15, 2010. He exposes the mockery that the Democrats are making of our legislative process in order to ram a government takeover of health care through Congress.
TAKE ACTION: A vote on this health care bill is expected to occur on Sunday. Call your Representative NOW and tell them to vote “NO” on this sham of a bill.
Mark R. Levin, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, today issued a warning to the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives about the possible use of the so-called “deem and pass,†“self-executing,†or “Slaughter Rule†to enact H.R. 3590, the legislative version of President Obama’s healthcare proposal that has been previously approved by the Senate. If this tactic is employed, Landmark will immediately sue the President, Attorney General Eric Holder and other relevant cabinet members to prevent them from instituting this unconstitutional contrivance. A copy of the complaint can be found here: Landmark’s Draft “Slaughter Rule” Complaint.Â
By a vote of 222 to 203, House Democrats voted today to uphold the usage of the “self-executing rule,” also known as the Slaughter Solution. Â This further validates that Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats will to anything to pass this health care bill, even if it is unconstitutional and just plain shady. Â The undocumented President Obama has made it clear time and again that he doesn’t care about the process – he just wants it passed, no matter the consequences. Â And there will be consequences.
The Slaughter Solution “deems” the Senate bill passed without the House ever having cast a vote, while they vote separately on a reconciliation measure. Â Pelosi wants this done so the American people wont’ be able to see who actually voted for the bill – she wants to shield her Congressional allies from their constituents who are mad as hell about their representatives not listening to the people.
Even one of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s floor whips, U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch, says a proposed parliamentary move to pass health-care reform would be “disingenuous†and harm the credibility of Congress.
In a sign of how tough it’s been for Pelosi to round up votes for the massive bill, Lynch – a South Boston Democrat who supported a House reform package last year – said he’ll probably vote against a key Senate version of the legislation, unless unexpected major changes are made soon.
Lynch, who serves as one of Pelosi’s key vote counters, said he also can’t support a proposed “deem and pass†procedure that would allow Democrats to vote to strip out controversial portions of the Senate bill and then “deem†that the entire package has passed without a second, direct vote.
“It’s disingenuous,†said Lynch, who considers unfair a Senate provision to tack a surcharge on higher-end health plans. “It would really call into question the credibility of the House.â€
On Dec. 7, 1941, an announcement was made during the football game between the hometown Washington Redskins and the Philadelphia Eagles. All the generals and admirals at Griffith Stadium were instructed to report to their duty stations. Little did they know their lives would be changed forever and America would be at war, or on war footing, for the next half-century. Pearl Harbor had been attacked.
America will be in a constant health-care war if ObamaCare is enacted. Passage wouldn’t end the health-care debate. Rather, it would perpetuate ObamaCare as the dominant issue for decades to come, reshape politics, create an annual funding crisis in Congress, and generate a spate of angry lawsuits. Yet few in Washington seem aware of what lies ahead.
We only have to look at Great Britain to get a glimpse of the future. The National Health Service—socialized medicine—was created in 1946 and touted as the envy of the world. It’s been a contentious issue ever since. Its cost and coverage are perennial subjects of debate. The press, especially England’s most popular newspaper, The Daily Mail, feasts on reports of long waiting periods, dirty hospitals, botched care and denied access to treatments.
A Conservative member of the European Parliament, Daniel Hannan, last year in an interview on Fox News denounced the NHS as a “60-year mistake,” declaring he “wouldn’t wish it on anybody.” As prime minister, Margaret Thatcher bravely cut NHS spending in the 1980s, but current Tory leaders regard criticism of the NHS as too risky. “The Conservative Party stands four square behind the NHS,” its leader, David Cameron, said in response to Mr. Hannan.
WE UNDERSTAND the administration’s sense of urgency on health-care reform. But what is intended as a final sprint threatens to turn into something unseemly and, more important, contrary to Democrats’ promises of transparency and time for deliberation.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Monday that she is leaning toward a parliamentary maneuver under which the House would vote on a package of changes to the Senate-approved reform bill, and the underlying Senate bill would then be “deemed” to have passed, even though the House had never voted on it. That may help some House members dodge a politically difficult decision, but it strikes us as a dodgy way to reform the health-care system. Democrats who vote for the package will be tagged with supporting the Senate bill in any event. Why not be straightforward about it?
More worrying is that Congress and the country have yet to see the changes, for which Democrats hope to win quick House approval and which they then hope to speed through the Senate under a procedure that would bar filibusters. These changes — the so-called reconciliation bill — are not all minor “fixes”; some could have far-reaching consequences. Such changes deserve to be fully understood and debated before they are voted on. The speaker’s office says the week-long “conversation” that Nancy Pelosi promised to have with members is taking place and that they are waiting for the final word from the Congressional Budget Office before releasing the package; in any event, they say, lawmakers and the public will have 72 hours to consider the changes. But why be so secretive about it? Any number of measures — including versions of the health-care bill itself — have been unveiled without CBO scores.
The health-care debate has been going on longer than a year, and House members want to get it over with. They don’t want it hanging over them during the Easter recess. President Obama wants progress to have been made before he leaves for Indonesia on Sunday. These are understandable desires, but they don’t outweigh the need for a reasonable process on a matter of such importance.
By Brian York: If you have any doubt that the Democratic leadership of the House views passing the current health care reform bill as the beginning, not the end, of the process of creating a national government health care system, just note what Speaker Nancy Pelosi told a group of bloggers on Monday. “My biggest fight has been between those who wanted to do something incremental and those who wanted to do something comprehensive,” Pelosi said, according to an account by Washington Post reform advocate Ezra Klein. “We won that fight, and once we kick through this door, there’ll be more legislation to follow.”
But since the current bill is unpopular, and Pelosi at the moment does not have enough Democratic, much less Republican, votes to pass it, the door she will be kicking through is the back door. Pelosi told the bloggers she favors using the “self-executing rule” strategy in which the House would pass the Senate health care bill without going on the record as specifically voting for it. “I like it,” Pelosi said of the scheme, “because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.” The strategy of passing the Senate bill while avoiding a direct vote, writes Klein, “is all about plausible deniability for House members who don’t want to vote for the Senate bill.”
In a particularly Alice-in-Wonderland moment, Pelosi argued that the debate over health care reform can begin after the bill is passed. “Pelosi said passing the bill would allow Dems to undertake a ‘debate’ with Republicans over ‘what is the balanced role that government should have,’” writes another pro-reform blogger at the Post, Greg Sargent. According to Sargent, Pelosi explained, “We have to take it to the American people, to say, this is the choice that you have. This is the vision that they have for your health and well being, and this is the vision that we have.” Again, in Pelosi’s scenario, that debate would occur after the bill is passed.
Finally, Pelosi downplayed statements from her own team that she does not yet have the votes to pass the national health care measure. On “Meet the Press” Sunday, Democratic Whip Rep. James Clyburn said, “No, we don’t have them as of this morning.” Meeting with the bloggers, Pelosi said, “The reason [Clyburn] said that is we don’t have a bill yet.” In the end, the Speaker declared, “I have no intention of not passing this bill.”
From the Wall Street Journal
Rep. Dave Camp, ranking Republican of the House Ways and Means Committee, has compiled this list of when different aspects of the recently passed healthcare legislation will go into effect. 
By Byron York — A 
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.
Well, they finally did it. Despite more than a year of steadily rising public opposition, manifested in opinion polls and in protest rallies across the country, President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi finally rammed through Obamacare late Sunday when House Democrats gave the bill their imprimatur.
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.
“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.
Republican Senator 
Mark R. Levin, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, today issued a warning to the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives about the possible use of the so-called “deem and pass,†“self-executing,†or “Slaughter Rule†to enact H.R. 3590, the legislative version of President Obama’s healthcare proposal that has been previously approved by the Senate. If this tactic is employed, Landmark will immediately sue the President, Attorney General Eric Holder and other relevant cabinet members to prevent them from instituting this unconstitutional contrivance. A copy of the complaint can be found here: 
E
On Dec. 7, 1941, an announcement was made during the football game between the hometown Washington Redskins and the Philadelphia Eagles. All the generals and admirals at Griffith Stadium were instructed to report to their duty stations. Little did they know their lives would be changed forever and America would be at war, or on war footing, for the next half-century. Pearl Harbor had been attacked.
WE UNDERSTAND the administration’s 
By Brian York: If you have any doubt that the Democratic leadership of the House views passing the current health care reform bill as the beginning, not the end, of the process of creating a national government health care system, just note what Speaker Nancy Pelosi told a group of bloggers on Monday. “My biggest fight has been between those who wanted to do something incremental and those who wanted to do something comprehensive,” Pelosi said, according to an 
Entries (RSS)