Obamacare Will Alienate Americans

[Guest]

Obamacare Will Alienate Americans

Tuesday, 22 Dec 2009 03:58 PM

By: Dick Morris

Obama's healthcare bill, the poisoned Kool-Aid making its way through the Senate, will not confer any of its supposed benefits on Americans until 2013. But they will find themselves chafing at its restrictions and paying its taxes immediately after the law takes effect. Then, they will see no gain, but plenty of pain, for the next three years.

This odd juxtaposition of "suffer now, benefit later" is the byproduct of the administration's sleight of hand in specifying ten years worth of cuts and taxes in the legislation, but deferring its benefits for the first four years. By comparing six years of spending with ten years of taxing, it managed to appear deficit neutral under the rules of the Congressional Budget Office. In fact, the annual revenues fall far short of covering any single year's worth of spending, adding to the deficit for each of the last six years over the next ten, but, viewing the decade as a whole, it appears deficit neutral.

Yet the political price is hardly neutral. Democrats who misguidedly vote for this monstrosity will face immediate political repercussions.

The harshest of these backlashes will come from the elderly who will suddenly visit their doctors and be told "no" when they ask for therapies or treatments. The rationing of medical care will start immediately on enactment and, one hopes, the outraged phone calls will start to descend on those whose votes enabled it.

The first "no" will hit the ten million elderly who now rely on Medicare Advantage to pay for the care Medicare itself does not cover. In a payoff to AARP, Obama gutted this program in his bill, ending over $100 billion in federal premium subsidies. These ten million voters will get the grim news that their premiums are going up and their benefits dropping early in 2010. The goal, of course, is to force them to drop Medicare Advantage and sign up, instead, for Medigap insurance — offered, not coincidentally, by the AARP — which provides less coverage at higher cost.

Young people without health insurance can expect to start writing $750 annual checks to Washington to pay the fines written into the bill. (And, after the conference committee finishes its work, the fines may be higher.)

All Americans will soon find their insurance premiums rising as a result of the bill. The young, uninsured will not buy policies. Why should they? Why not just pay the $750 fines each year? Why pay between two percent and 10 percent of their household income before subsidies kick in? It makes no financial sense for anyone making more than $30,000 to pay for coverage. (And most of those under that threshold will be covered by Medicaid, not by private insurance.)

There is no reason for the young to buy private insurance. The legislation requires that health insurers take all comers and not raise rates based on pre-existing conditions. So the young can get coverage when they need it, having only paid $750 per year beforehand.

The difference in cost will, of course, be borne by families throughout America who will see their health insurance premiums increase. President Obama and his Democratic rubber stamps may appreciate that they are not raising taxes on the middle class, just raising mandatory health insurance premiums, but the distinction is likely to be lost on swing voters.

From now on, any increase in health insurance premiums will become the political responsibility of the Obama administration. As Gen. Colin Powell once said of Iraq, "You break it. You own it." Since these premiums have been rising by an average of 10% per year for more than the past decade, this is a legacy most politicians would sensibly avoid if they could.

© Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Source- http://newsmax.com/Morris/Obama-healthcare-democrats-taxes/2009/12/22/id/344394

[Guest]

Ain't that the truth!!

[bonnie]

Ain't that the truth!!

I will still be surprised if it doesn't go thru. To many people are in favor of something they have not read.The magic word free is really enticing.

Many see government money not as coming from the taxpayer,but from some magic government tree on the White House lawn

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Ain't that the truth!!

I will still be surprised if it doesn't go thru. To many people are in favor of something they have not read.The magic word free is really enticing.

Many see government money not as coming from the taxpayer,but from some magic government tree on the White House lawn

I believe you're right about that.

[bonnie]

CNSNews.com

Rep. Stupak: White House Pressuring Me to Keep Quiet on Abortion Language in Senate Health Bill

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) (AP Photo)

(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said the White House and the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives have been pressuring him not to speak out on the "compromise" abortion language in the Senate version of the health care bill.

“They think I shouldn’t be expressing my views on this bill until they get a chance to try to sell me the language,” Stupak told CNSNews.com in an interview on Tuesday. “Well, I don’t need anyone to sell me the language. I can read it. I’ve seen it. I’ve worked with it. I know what it says. I don’t need to have a conference with the White House. I have the legislation in front of me here.”

The Michigan Democrat succeeded last month in getting 64 House Democrats to join him in attaching his pro-life amendment to the House version of the health-care bill. The “Stupak amendment,” as the provision is known, would prohibit the federal government from allocating taxpayer money to pay for any part of any health insurance plan that covers abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger.

Stupak had contact with the White House last weekend, when the Senate voted 60 to 40 in the hours of Monday morning to shut off debate on the Senate version of the bill.

The current version of the Senate bill contains so-called “compromise” language crafted by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). This language does not bar taxpayer funding of health plans that cover abortion, but does create a firewall to supposedly keep federal money from being used to pay for abortions. Over the weekend, Stupak issued a statement calling the proposed Senate language "unacceptable."

"A review of the Senate language indicates a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage," said the statement.

In his interview with CNSNews.com on Tuesday, Stupak said that the White House "asked me just to hold off for awhile and not to say anything about this language. But as soon as the news broke that they had this [compromise], and they got the 60 votes, folks were asking me, and I’m not going to run from the issue I’m going to stand up and say, ‘Look, here’s my objections.' Here – it’s not just my objections – but there’s a number of my [colleagues] who feel strongly about this issue, and these are the parts that have to be fixed.”

Stupak said he is not alone in being pressured from the White House and the House Democratic leadership – other pro-life Democratic colleagues apparently are, as well. But they plan to hold firm, he said.

“We’re getting a lot of pressure not to say anything, to try to compromise this principle or belief,” Stupak said. “[T]hat’s just not us. We’re not going to do that. Members who voted for the Stupak language in the House – especially the Democrats, 64 Democrats that voted for it – feel very strongly about it. It’s been part of who we are, part of our make up. It’s the principle belief that we have. We are not just going to abandon it in the name of health care."

When asked if he has the votes he needs to stop the bill if, in its final version, it does not include the language of his amendment or nearly identical language, Stupak did not answer directly.

“Well, if all the issues are resolved and we’re down to the pro-life view or, I should say, no public funding for abortion, there’s at least 10 to 12 members who have said, repeatedly, unless this language is fixed and current law is maintained, and no public funding for abortion," said Stupak. "There’s 10 or 12 of us, and they only passed the bill by 3 votes, so they’re going to be short 8 to 9, maybe 6 to 8 votes. So they [Democrats] do not have the votes to pass it in the House.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he wants a vote on a final bill before Christmas. After that, a House-Senate conference could convene in early January to merge the Senate and House versions of the bill and lead to a final vote by both chambers.

[bonnie]

Democrats Break Ground

By Philip Klein on 12.21.09 @ 6:10AM

"This is not the end of health care reform," Sen. Tom Harkin declared on the Senate floor after midnight this morning. "This is the beginning of health care reform."

Harkin was attempting to convince restive liberals that even a scaled back health care bill that did not include their beloved public option was still worth passing. But his comments, along with those made by other Senate Democrats in the week leading up to this morning's 1 a.m. vote to advance the Senate health care bill, confirmed what critics have been saying throughout the health care debate.

The point isn't that this one piece of legislation, on its own, will impose a Canadian-style, government-run health care system on the United States immediately. The point is that Democrats are putting infrastructure in place that will allow them to implement a government-run system over time.

By voting in the middle of the night to block a Republican filibuster attempt, Democrats took a big step toward passing health legislation, which is now expected to pass the Senate on Christmas Eve. To be sure, they'll still encounter a number of obstacles before President Obama can sign it into law.

The version of the bill that passed the House of Representatives has both a public option and stronger abortion language. Liberals and pro-life Democrats in the House are promising a fight during the conference that will merge the two bills, and any concessions to them could upset the delicate balance in the Senate that allowed Majority Leader Harry Reid to cobble together 60 votes. With that said, so far Democrats have proven willing to cut whatever deals they need to in order to get a health care bill across the finish line, and that same dynamic is likely to play out during the remaining negotiations.

As written, the Senate health care bill will force every American to purchase a government-approved insurance policy or pay a tax. It will expand Medicaid by 15 million people. It will create a new government-run long-term care insurance entitlement, called the Class Act, that even Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad called "a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of." And it will create new government-run insurance exchanges on which individuals would use government subsidies to buy government-designed insurance policies.

Taken together, this legislation enables to federal government to get its hands on every aspect of the health care system -- and it's only a matter of time before it tighten its grip. Just listen to what Democrats are saying now.

"What we need to do is lay a strong foundation," Sen. Ron Wyden said in an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow last week. "A foundation that we can build on in the years ahead. We are not going to get everything we want in round one, but we are going to get a foundation that we are going to build on in the years ahead."

Sen. Jay Rockefeller told the New Republic "that liberal advocates could try again another year to push for the reforms that didn't make it into the current bill." He said, "You know we're going to be back next year, and the year after that, and the year after that."

And in comments on the Senate floor on Friday, Sen. John Kerry argued that Democrats shouldn’t even wait that long. Kerry recalled how Sen. Ted Kennedy regretted he never accepted a deal President Richard Nixon offered that would have forced employers to insure everybody, with some help from government.

"The lesson Teddy learned is this," Kerry explained. "When it comes to historic breakthroughs in America, especially in social policies, you make the best deal that you can, and immediately, you start pushing for ways to improve the deal."

Kerry said Kennedy applied that lesson after successfully fighting for a minimum wage increase in 1996, only to turn around and immediately call for another increase while at a victory rally.

"He was in the victory moment, and he turned to Congresman George Miller, and he said, 'I'm introducing a bill to raise the minimum wage,'" Kerry recounted. "And George Miller said, 'What do you mean? You haven't even let the dust settle?' And (Kennedy) said, 'We've gotta move on this.'"

The same logic, Kerry said, should apply to passing health care legislation. And as evidence, he noted that Medicare and Medicaid have greatly expanded over time.

If this health care legislation becomes law, Democrats will attempt to use the new infrastructure they built to add stricter regulations, more subsidies, and additional mandates. They will continue to incrementally expand existing government-run programs such as Medicaid. And as health care spending spirals out of control, instead of faulting government intervention, liberals will blame the absence of a public option.

[Guest]

Yep

[bonnie]

Obamacare a pallbearer for American freedom?

Monty Pelerin

"The essence of government is control, or the attempt to control."

(Benjamin Tucker)

There is no better way to describe the so-called health care plan than Tucker's quote. It is not about improving health care; it never was. Oh there may be some dim bulbs in Congress that truly believe they have improved the country and the health system with their latest efforts. But sincerity is not an excuse for stupidity. Reality does not give a damn about good intentions.

The majority in Congress knows exactly what this bill means for them and medical care in this country. For them, it opens up the potential for total control of the citizenry. For health care it means continued deterioration in our health care system, but in a way that is "fairer" than before. It provides for broader insurance coverage at the expense of the quality of medical care. But for idealogues who worship at the altar of equality, that is a reasonable trade-off. Winston Churchill described socialism's value thusly: "its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

For the rest of us, it means the continuing deterioration of health care that commenced with government's involvement in Medicare. For a full discussion of this point, see Scott Gottlieb's article in the New York Post on Obamacare.

Perhaps more important than the effects on the quality of health care will be the effects on every aspect of our lives. Ayn Rand's warning long ago has finally come true under the Trojan Horse known as health care reform: "We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."

The reach provided by health care "reform" is virtually unbounded. Congress or its bureaucratic arms will begin invading not only every aspect of traditional doctor-patient relationships, but every aspect of individual freedom. Food content, diet requirements, exercise, living style and much more will soon come under attack. There is no aspect of human behavior that a motivated and imaginative mind cannot link to health. The public nuisances and busybodies in government have more than the requisite motivation to "improve" your life. Now they have a set of tools that enables them to do so. They literally will be able to invade every aspect of human behavior under the guise of improving your health.

The concept of American individualism, freedom and greatness has Obamacare as its pallbearer.

l.com

[Guest]

Yep

[Ted Oplinger]

All it took was a few buy-outs, some threats, and a lot of bloviating from that "Independent" from Vermont, who excoriated the bill just two days ago for being a sell-out to the insurance companies, then turns around and votes for it this morning.

Merry, Christmas, folks!

We've been visited by the Grinch, and this Grinch isn't merely stopping with vacuuming up all of Christmas, but vacuuming our wallets continuously for many, many years to come...not just stealing Christmas, but our health care, our freedom, and our rights.

HOPE and CHANGE...just in time for Christmas...