Archive for the ‘Health Care Reform Summary’ Category
- In: Barack Obama | Big Labor Unions | Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Bill | Economy/Money | Federal Reserve | Government Failure Series from Cato Institute | Health Care | Health Care Reform Summary | Know the enemies of America | national deficit, taxes, national budget | Obama admistration | Obama Against America | Obama and ethics | Obama Executive Decress | Obamanation | Obamcare repeal and replace | Progressives Movement to Destroy America | Thye Tea Party Patriots Movement | Unfunded liabilities
- Leave a Comment
I have been getting wind of this for some time but never in detail so just sat on it waiting for a more official notice. Heritage Foundation doesn’t report on rumors so here it is Dear Readers just what we tax payers have grown to expect from our government. At this time I can only refer you to a statement by Thomas Jefferson. (And for you purest I also included the source of Jefferson’s quote since the last time I used a quote I got all kinds of comments refuting the source I had given).
AUTHOR: Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) QUOTATION: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. ATTRIBUTION: THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787.—The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, vol. 12, p. 356 (1955).
A related idea was later expressed by Bertrand Barère de Vieuzac in a speech to the French national assembly, January 16, 1793: “L’arbre de la liberté… croît lorsqu’il est arrosé du sang de toute espèce de tyrans (The tree of liberty grows only when watered by the blood of tyrants),” Archives Parliamentaires de 1787 à 1860, vol. 57, p. 368 (1900).
And much earlier Tertullian had said: “Plures efficimur quotiens metimur a vobis; semen est sanguis Christianorum (We multiply whenever we are mown down by you; the blood of Christians is seed),” Apology, trans. T. R. Glover, pp. 226–27 (1931).
NOW READ WHAT CONGRESS IS UP TO! Sincerely, BB
Now Congress Wants to Exempt Itself from Obamacare
April 25, 2013 at 1:33 pm
No argument for Obamacare’s repeal can top the simple fact that Members of Congress do not want it to apply to them.
Today’s Politico reports that the House and Senate congressional leadership—both Democrats and Republicans working in cahoots with Obama Administration officials—have been secretly negotiating for months trying to find a way to exempt Members of Congress and their staffs from being forced into Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges.
Beginning on January 1, 2014, these exchanges, to be run by the federal government or the states (under federal rules) will offer federally “qualified” insurance coverage for millions of Americans. Ordinary Americans must either sign up or face a tax penalty. Senator Max Baucus (D–MT), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has now famously described the Obama’s Administration’s implementation of this process as an oncoming “train wreck,” and Henry Chao, an Administration official involved with the implementation of the law, just hopes that Americans can avoid a “third-world experience.”
According to the Politico story, there are two major reasons why Members of Congress want to exempt themselves and their staffs from the terms and conditions of the law:
- They fear higher health care costs. Congressional leaders fear that being forced into the Obamacare exchanges will result in higher health care costs for themselves and their families and their aides. “The problem stems from whether members and aides set to enter the exchanges would have their health insurance premiums subsidized by their employer—in this case the federal government.” This is also true for millions of ordinary Americans. They could also lose their employer-based coverage, and they could also face higher costs. Also contrary to the President’s promises, independent analystsexpect health insurance premiums to rise sharply, particularly for younger workers and their families.
- They fear the impact on Capitol Hill employment. “There is concern in some quarters that the provision requiring lawmakers and staffers to join the exchanges, if it isn’t revised, could lead to a ‘brain drain’ on Capitol Hill, as several sources close to the talks put it.” Given the insane spending and record deficits, it’s hard to imagine how a Capitol Hill “brain drain” could produce even worse government. But ordinary Americans who run businesses are also faced with anxieties, particularly whether they will be able to hire or retain valued employees or reduce full-time workers to part-time employees in order to avoid Obamacare’s mandatory costs.
For veteran Capitol Hill watchers, shenanigans behind closed doors to enable Congress and its staffers to escape Obamacare come as no surprise. After all, the national health care law was fashioned through repulsive backroom dealing (the “Cornhusker Kickback,” the “Louisiana Purchase,” etc.) that set a record for arrogance and contempt of popular opinion. Favored businesses and unions got special exemptions (more than 1,200 waivers) from Obamacare’s insurance rules. So consider today’s Politico revelation just marquee for a rerun of a tiresome old movie: one set of rules for Congress and another set of rules for the rest of us.
If Congress quietly wants to exempt itself from Obamacare, that’s great—so long as it includes the rest of us in that midnight amendment.
(Remember Dear Reader that Obama has already exempted the labor unions and other cronies so why not themselves?!!~ these people are beyond repulsive IMO. The Tea Party is revving up for the 2014 election with the theme to throw them all out and get decent people in Congress. Unfortunately we stuck with Obama regardless of how many laws he breaks or how many impeachable offenses he commits because there is no way the first American Black President will be impeached. But we can damned well change Congress! and put more sane conservative people in who will uphold our constitutional rights and govern as our country should be governed. This means first repealing Obamacare, then Dodd-Frank and that is just a start of what needs done in Washington. Things a decent and sincere Copngressman or woman will do. Sincerely, BB)
Posted March 12, 2013on:
- In: Communism in America | Deficit Reduction Proposal | Economy/Money | Financial Industry Reform | Health Care Reform Summary | Ineffective Government Programs | Iran and Nuclear weapons | Know the enemies of America | Obama's moratorium on drilling in the Gulf | Obamcare repeal and replace | Redistributing wealth | Unfunded liabilities
- Leave a Comment
The budgets from the Republican House (Ryan budget), the Democrats in the Senate and Obama won’t pass so the country will again for the fourth year continue to operate on “continuing resolutions”. The law of the country requires that Congress pass a budget but for 4 years the Senate has refused to even offer up a budget let alone pass the one offered by either the President (NOT ONE VOTE FOR ANT OBAMA BUDGET EVEN FROM A DEMOCRAT!) or the budget offered by and passed by the Republicans in the House.
Sooooo, here we have the Senate Democrats ”continuing resolution” and if all the tears hadn’t been rung out of me in November when We the People re-elected Obama to the Presidency then I would probably find myself crying again. Surely not all of these people are evil and certainly they are not all stupid, so what in the world is happening in the Democrat Senators minds?!?
The following article from The Heritage Foundation explains very well some of the more egregious proposed spending. I hope when you read this you get on the hone to your Congressman or woman be he/she Democrat or Republican and demand some sanity in Washington. BB
Heritage Experts’ Reaction to Senate Continuing Resolution
March 12, 2013 at 5:40 pm
The massive spending bill, or continuing resolution, released by the Senate this week continues spending on programs which are inappropriate or wasteful and fails to adopt good policies in many areas. Here’s a rundown of some of the worst offenders in the Senate bill:
Obamacare. The CR fails to stop the massive spending in Obamacare. Obamacare obligates an estimated $1.2 trillion for subsidies to individuals for purchasing coverage through the government exchanges and $638 billion for states agreeing to expand their Medicaid programs. Congress should eliminate the exchange subsidies and the enhanced federal match for the Medicaid expansion. Stopping these provisions would save the federal government more than $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years. Nor does it take steps to defund implementation of Obamacare.
(Already the regulations governing how Obamacare is implemented is 7 feet tall and only about 1/40 of the bill is covered by these regulations. Just the application to qualify for Obamacare is 15 pages long! BB)
—Nina Owcharenko, Director, Center for Health Policy Studies and Preston A. Wells, Jr. Fellow
Inadequate Defense Funding Levels. The detailed defense appropriations provisions in the House-adopted appropriations bill (H.R. 933), and now its Senate companion legislation, provide inadequate overall funding levels for defense, in part because they will continue to apply the reduction in defense spending for the current fiscal year required by sequestration. Nevertheless, the defense provisions continue wasteful spending practices. These defense appropriations provisions were agreed to by House and Senate appropriators earlier, and therefore the wasteful practices were also preserved in the Senate version of the same legislation.
The Heritage Foundation has identified at least $70 billion in annual savings within the Department of Defense through a combination of military health care and retirement reform, hiring freezes, expanding performance-based logistics, and reforming the acquisition process.
Clearly, this is money that could be kept within the defense budget and put into more militarily useful programs, such as improving space technology for use in missile defense or developing new classes of nuclear weapons delivery systems. The more productive approach to funding an effective military posture for the U.S. would be for Congress to return to the regular budgetary order, set aside sequestration, adopt higher defense appropriations that are applied in a more disciplined fashion and look to restrain federal spending growth in the areas of foreign aid, domestic discretionary programs, and entitlements.
(The world has never been so dangerous as it is today. Iran is on the verge of getting nuclear weapons and working very aggressively on their missile delivery program. North Korea already has nuclear weapons and now may very well have a missile able to hit the West Coast. So what does the President and the Democrats want to do? cut our defense programs! BB)
—Baker Spring, F.M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy
Head Start. Increasing Head Start funding is the antithesis of good early childhood education policy. The Senate CR provides $33.5 million in new funding for one of the most ineffective federal education programs in existence today: Head Start. While the new funding is earmarked for the Obama Administration’s plan to make the worst-performing Head Start centers re-compete for funds, it represents new spending on a program the federal government has deemed totally ineffective at meeting the needs of poor children.
In December, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released itslong-overdue evaluation of Head Start. The agency’s scientifically rigorous evaluation of more than 5,000 Head Start children from the time they entered the program through third grade revealed that the $8 billion per year federal program had little to no impact on cognitive, social-emotional, health, or parenting practices of participants. On a few measures, access to Head Start had negative effects on children.
In addition to the evidence presented by HHS of Head Start’s ineffectiveness, in 2010 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported widespread fraud at Head Start centers. GAO sent undercover investigators into Head Start centers in various states, and in half they found fraudulent activity, such as Head Start employees counseling families to underreport their income in order to appear eligible for services.
Since 1965, taxpayers have expended some $180 billion on Head Start yet have not received a return on that “investment.” And now, in the wake of an objective report by HHS demonstrating that Head Start is failing the poor children it was designed to serve, the Senate CR would increase spending and eschew any suggestion of eliminating or reforming the Great Society relic.
Head Start should be eliminated. At a minimum, it should be reformed to allow states to make their Head Start dollars portable, following low-income children to a private preschool provider of choice, instead of relegating them to underperforming Head Start centers.
—Lindsey Burke, Will Skillman Fellow in Education
Energy. The Senate CR continues to fund a failed energy policy that empowers Washington bureaucrats instead of American families and businesses. Though it does cut some programs minimally, it does the equivalent of removing a used napkin from a full trash can. There’s much more waste that needs to be removed. For example, section 1203 reduces Department of Energy (DOE) funding by $44 million when more than $5.3 billion could be cut. The $44 million is equivalent to 0.8 percent of what should be cut.
Perhaps most egregious is the meager $11 million cut from the $1.8 billion request for Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. In total, the DOE budget funds applied-research programs on conventional fuels, renewable energy sources, and nuclear energy that the private sector should be undertaking. American families and business are far better equipped than government to determine what types of energy technologies work for them. Eliminating these programs alone would save $3 billion in taxpayer money and help to return energy choice back to Americans.
Though the bill cuts $10 million from nuclear energy spending, based on the 2013 request, it would still fund over $150 million for nuclear waste disposal and management programs. None of this funding would go toward Yucca Mountain, the waste repository mandated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended. Given the complete lack of any nuclear waste disposal or management policy by the Administration and its insistence on terminating the Yucca project, there is little justification for this spending. Instead, Congress should provide $40 million for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to finish its review of the DOE’s Yucca Mountain permit application.
(The United States sits on the largest pool of CLEAN natural gas in the world and we have the means to get to this energy source but it does not fall into the category of solar, wind or water. natural gas is a fossil fuel! BAD!!! The United States also has the largest pool of oil available within our borders. Obama likes to say that we are pumping more oil today than at any time in our history. this is true but it is BEING PUMPED OFF OF PRIVATE PROPERTY AND NOT FROM GOVERNMENT OWNED LANDS. AND THE GOVERNMENT IS BUYING UP PROPERTY LIKE NEVER BEFORE TO PUT MORE LAND UNDER IT’S CONTROL! bb)
—Jack Spencer, Senior Research Fellow, Nuclear Energy, and Nick Loris, Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Unlike the budget passed by the House, the Senate bill seeks to restore government spending to fund the failed CPSC product safety database. CPSC decision making with respect to the database has previously been called “arbitrary and capricious” by the courts.
Since it was implemented in 2011, manufacturers have shown that the CPSC database is seriously flawed. The database allows the public to submit unproven claims of harm with the CPSC and gives manufacturers only 10 days to challenge these claims; however, the CPSC itself has final authority to publish reports of such claims, even if they are disproved by the manufacturer. The accuracy of the CPSC reports is thus seriously questionable, and is a one-stop shop for tort lawyers seeking new clients or seeking “evidence” for their current lawsuits.
Furthermore, last October, in Company Doe v. Inez Tenenbaum, a federal court in Maryland overturned a decision of the CPSC to publish a report as “arbitrary and capricious,” because the CPSC report was “misleading and fail[ed] to relate to the [manufacturer’s] product in any way.” Indeed, the CPSC database is a concrete example of government waste: It is a shame that the Senate bill seeks to restore government spending to publishing misleading claims that damage business growth and likely lead to additional frivolous lawsuits.
(What this means for you and me is that companies will refuse to put new products on the market that may save a life! BB)
—Andrew Kloster, Legal Fellow
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): $77.2 billion. The recommendation continues record-high food stamp benefits. Food stamp spending has approximately doubled since President Obama came to office. It is one of the largest and fastest growing federal welfare programs. The federal government operates 80 federal welfare programs at a cost of nearly $1 trillion a year. Over 10 of these provide food assistance.
Food stamp spending should be rolled back to pre-recession levels. Able-bodied adults without dependents who receive food stamp benefits should be required to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving benefits.
—Rachel Sheffield, Research Associate
Job Corps: $30 million added to the funding level already provided under sequestration. This program should be terminated, because a scientifically rigorous impact evaluation of Job Corps participants were less likely to obtain high school degrees, were no more likely to attend or complete college, and earned only $0.22 more in hourly wages than non-participants. Further, the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General estimates each Job Corps participant who is successfully placed into any job costs taxpayers $76,574. (Why don’t we just give every one who applies for one of these job training programs $20,000. and send them home to sit on their asses for another 6 months? This would be a whole lot cheaper in the long run! BB)
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) grants: $416.5 million. VAWA grantsshould be terminated, because these services should be funded locally. Using federal agencies to fund the routine operations of domestic violence programs that state and local governments could provide is a misuse of federal resources and a distraction from concerns that are truly the province of the federal government.
(This one just makes me cringe and cry and be sick! BB)
Office of Justice Programs (OJP) grants: $1.1 billion. OJP grants should be terminated, because these grants assign functions to the federal government that fall within the expertise, jurisdiction, and constitutional responsibilities of state and local governments. Further, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants ($392 million) within OJP have been used to place criminals on the street without posting bail.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP): $279.5 million. OJJDP grants should be terminated, because these grants fund juvenile justice and prevention programs that fall under the unique responsibilities of state and local governments. Further, there is little evidence that these grants are effective at preventing delinquency.
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): $225.5 million. COPS grantsshould be terminated, because these grants assign functions to the federal government that fall within the expertise, jurisdiction, and constitutional responsibilities of state and local governments. Further COPS grants were used tosupplant local funds and had little to no effect on reducing crime.
FEMA Fire Grants: $675 million. Fire grants should be terminated. Fire grants, which subsidize the routine operations of local fire departments, are ineffective at reducing fire-related deaths and injuries of firefighters and civilians. Fire grants incorrectly encourage local fire departments to become increasingly dependent on federal funding.
—David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D., Research Fellow in Empirical Policy Analysis
Postal Service Saturday delivery: $2 billion. The Senate CR continues—by omission—the prior year’s ban on using the Postal Service’s small appropriation to reduce service levels, effectively mandating Saturday service. This, along with other such congressional restriction, limits the Postal Service’s ability to reduce costs and increases the risk of massive federal subsidies in the near future. (Yes, the Post Master CAN NOT make decisions that would make the Post Office more efficient because of Congress! BB)
—James Gattuso, Senior Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy
NASA Manned Spacecraft: $1.2 billion. The Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle is the new manned spacecraft NASA is developing for exploration of the Moon and Mars and for other purposes. Manned space flight is vastly more expensive than robotic exploration and is largely a public relations showcase for NASA to market itself to the American people. NASA’s budget should be pared back to a tight focus on cost-effective projects to advance its core missions.
(This is one I disagree with. The United States and Americans have benefited much from inventions made and perfected by the space program. I won’t go into the many, many inventions because you can google them for yourself. The space program should not be cut. And, another reason is the brain drain because these NASA scientists needing jobs will go to Russia, china and other countries; do we really want this? BB )
—J. D. Foster, Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy
National Science Foundation (NSF): $221 million. The bill would increase funding for NSF by $221 million, compared to the fiscal year (FY) 2012 enacted level, putting the total funding amount to $7.25 billion. Yet NSF has spent large amounts on research projects that are clearly not federal priorities ($325,000 for a “Robosquirrel” study; $516,000 creating a video game simulating prom week; and $350,000 for a study on how golfers should imagine a bigger hole when playing). Basic research is important, but given that NSF funding is diverted to inappropriate projects, it becomes wasteful. Budget reductions may help encourage more prudence.
National Institutes of Health (NIH): $71 million. Some of NIH’s funding goes to projects that seem inappropriate, such as $550,000 to acquire evidence that heavy drinking in a person’s 30s can lead to feelings of immaturity, while in their 20s it would not.
Legal Services Corporation (LSC): $358 million. This program should be terminated, because these services should be funded locally. The money is oftendiverted instead of going to poor people needing legal services, and there is a long history of waste and abuse of these funds by executives at the LSC.
Transportation. The bill would increase funding for highway programs and transit formula grants to match the levels authorized in Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), current surface transportation law. It also funds a $4 million Transit Safety office that was authorized in MAP-21. By funding this new office and the transit formula grants, the bill would continue diversions of limited Highway Trust Fund (HTF) user fees to transit, which is a demonstrated local—not a federal—priority.
Transit serves truly local needs and is predominantly concentrated in just six cities.Congress should end such diversions from the HTF, because they come at the expense of highway and bridge maintenance and expansion projects and do not demonstrably improve mobility and safety.
—Emily Goff, Research Associate
Housing and Urban Development Public Operating Fund: $562 million. The bill restores money from an FY 2012 cut to previous levels for a total 2013 funding request of $3.962 billion. The fund pays local public housing authorities annual subsidies for such things as maintenance, management, insurance and energy costs. These should be the responsibility of local jurisdictions.
—David C. John, Senior Research Fellow
- In: Barack Obama | Communism in America | Economy/Money | Health Care | Health Care Reform Summary | Know the enemies of America | Obama 2013 and beyond | Obama admistration | Obama Against America | Obama and ethics | Obamanation | Obamcare repeal and replace | Subverting America by Uri Bezmenov | Taxes
- 6 Comments
American elected Obama even tho they knew it would bring them Obamacare. Even the majority of Democrats now know that Obamacare is the worse thing that can happen to our nation and yet it goes on. Already the 2000 page bill has generated 30,000 pages of regulation from the Washington pencil pushers whom no one elected and no one has any control over! The Obama blessed unions are out in the streets asking for (and will probably get!!) the right to opt out of Obamacare, but We the People will be stuck with it and paying for it. At the same time we will be forced to pay for these cadillac health care insurances plans of the union thugs (remember how Obama and company guaranteed all those poor auto workers at GM their own health care plans and their large pensions at tax payer expense way back when Obama took over the auto industry with the so-called stimulus bill? Again and again I repeat the things this president has done to destroy our country and again and again I am amazed at how much the American people are allowing him to get away with. Any other President doing 1/3 what he has done would have been tarred and feathered and impeached.
Read the following article from Cato for more information on just how horrid Obamacare is. BB
FEBRUARY 4, 2013 10:59AM
ObamaCare’s Triple-Digit Premium Hikes Dramatize the Need for Repeal
This is unacceptable…
President Obama has offered a health insurance reform proposal to help working families and small business owners. It will hold insurance companies accountable by laying out common-sense rules of the road to keep premiums down…
Reform will change the rules and help stop exorbitant increases.
And the President’s plan will help reduce costs…
According to the Chicago Sun-Times, that double-digit rate increase “helped dramatize the need for regulation.”
That episode came to mind this morning when I read about a survey of health insurers that shows ObamaCare will neither “keep premiums down” nor “stop exorbitant increases” nor “reduce costs”:
The survey, fielded by the conservative American Action Forum and made available to POLITICO, found that if the law’s insurance rules were in force, the premium for a relatively bare-bones policy for a 27-year-old male nonsmoker on the individual market would be nearly 190 percent higher…
Most other studies have tried to estimate average premium increases, which have ranged anywhere from negligible to 85 percent and higher. This survey looks at individual examples in specific markets to show the itemized impact of the major Obamacare reforms…
On average, premiums for individual policies for young and healthy people and small businesses that employ them would jump 169 percent, the survey found.
These findings are in line with projections by neutral observers and even ObamaCare supporters like MIT economist Jonathan Gruber that the law will increase premiums for some individuals and small businesses by more than 100 percent.
If double-digit premium increases dramatized the need for regulation, do triple-digit increases dramatize the need for its repeal?
Politico offers a strange rationalization for these rate hikes:
The increase will most likely be substantial for “a slice of the younger population,” said Massachusetts Institute of Technology health economist Jon Gruber, a supporter of the health law who has studied its impact on premiums.
And those are the people who, before Obamacare, benefited from insurers’ ability to charge older, sicker people much higher rates — or deny them coverage altogether — practices that have kept premiums for the young low.
Set aside the fact that these rate hikes effectively tax young workers to subsidize older workers who generally have higher incomes. According to this theory – I can’t tell if it came from Gruber or Politico – those young workers are today unjustly enriched because they’re not being robbed.
This sad day when Obama is sworn into his second term as President of the United
States seems appropriate for this article concerning how even the Democrats who voted for but never read the freedom destroying monster that is Obamacare, are now trying to dismantle it.
I was especially “heartened ” today to hear in the President’s speech that he was devoted to the protection of Medicare. Of course it is his Obamacare that takes $575 billion plus a year from the Medicare program to pay for Obamacare! He didn’t mention that did he? Americans pay into the Medicare program and it is supposed to be used for the Medicare program but Obama and his Democrats are raiding the Medicare program in order to partially pay for their evil monster that does little to nothing to control the costs of or improve the health care problems that we do have in the United States. Nor did he mention the 18 new taxes in the Obamacare package that are to be placed on the backs of Americans to fix a problem 80% of the population doesn’t have since they have medical insurance thru their employers. But our President is going to stand firm against those nasty Republicans who are going about to snatch our entitlements away from us Americans! Well my fellow Americans you can free safe and stand down your watch now because our President while protecting our entitlements from those thieving Republicans he will also be working really hard to take away our freedoms—one by one by one! and make us all slaves on ‘Uncle Sam’s Plantation’. Sincerely, Brenda Bowers
You might find this article interesting to see how those who were so eager to push this thing down our throats regardless of the massive protests around the country are now trying to back pedal. Be sure and go to all the referred sites. BB
Things aren’t going so well for Obamacare.
Even Democrats in Congress aren’t huge fans any more. It seems after passing the law and finding out what’s in it, the allure has faded—so much so that Congress actually repealed part of Obamacare in the fiscal cliff deal last week.
That’s right—part of Obamacare has been completely undone. It was the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act, essentially a new entitlement program for long-term care. But this new government program for people who end up needing assisted living or other long-term services was poorly designed and bound to fail, as Heritage’s Alyene Senger explains.
“CLASS was a bad deal for both taxpayers (who would likely have had to bail out the program) and beneficiaries (who would be better served by choosing among private options),” Senger wrote.
The program was so poorly designed that one of its own administrators warned Congress in 2011 that the program could collapse.
This is just one example of how poorly thought out Obamacare was—but this example so captured Congress’s attention that it spurred action. Another part of Obamacare that just took effect, the medical device tax, started making some Senators uneasy before it was scheduled to begin.
A group of 18 Senators, including such outspoken Democrats as Al Franken (MN), John Kerry (MA), Charles Schumer (NY), and Debbie Stabenow (MI), asked Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to delay the tax, which falls on every item used in medical treatments, from stents to syringes, IV tubes, and prosthetics.
As Heritage senior policy analyst Curtis Dubay noted, this tax will mean more than just higher prices:
Depending on how these businesses pass the tax on, it could result in higher prices for their customers (e.g. patients), lower returns to their shareholders, or fewer jobs for their workers. As we explained earlier, evidence is mounting that it is their workers that will bear the brunt of the tax.
More taxes, higher prices, and lost jobs—no wonder the Senators wanted to delay it! If only they had considered those effects before many of them voted for Obamacare in the first place.
The medical device tax is only one of five of the new taxes that start in 2013 and one of the 18 tax hikes spread throughout Obamacare. Many of these tax hikes, like the medical device tax, will hit hard-working Americans.
Even Democratic governors are unsure about this law. Many governors are weighing the costs of setting up a state health exchange and expanding their already troubled Medicaid programs. The nation’s governors, like the U.S. Congress, are figuring out that Obamacare is an unworkable monstrosity.
Posted July 2, 2012on:
- In: Barack Obama | Constitution of the United States of America | Economy/Money | Health Care | Health Care Reform Summary | Know the enemies of America | Obama admistration | Obama Against America | Obama and ethics | Obamacare | Obamanation | Obamcare repeal and replace | Progressives Movement to Destroy America | Project to Restore America | Supreme Court | Supreme Court rulings | The Fight Back | Unfunded liabilities | US in Revolt
- 2 Comments
If you read my previous post you se that I feel Chief Justice Roberts did the People a favor with his ruling on Obamacare. I seem to be very much in the minority in my thinking, especially up against such brilliant people as Mark Levin who is all but ready to call Roberts out as a traitor to his country. But The Project to Restore America newsletter this month seems to see things my way. Check out what they have to say: (BB)
Obamacare Survives, but Political Playing Field Has Changed
By Michael Barone
Monday, July 02, 2012
The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision upholding the Obama administration’s health care legislation was a victory for the president, his administration and his party. Their most ambitious legislative achievement has not been nullified, and they are not left in obvious disarray.
But it is only a partial victory and in some ways not a victory at all, both in the short run electorally and in the long run in terms of the constitutional order.
Politically Obamacare, as its critics call it, remains highly unpopular. It’s possible that the court decision will boost its support, but unlikely.
Most voters want this law repealed. Mitt Romney and the Republicans want to repeal it. Barack Obama and the Democrats want to preserve it. It’s not a winning issue for the incumbent.
Constitutionally, many conservatives are unhappy that Chief Justice Roberts and the four justices generally considered liberal voted to uphold the mandate to buy health insurance as a tax, which Congress is clearly empowered to levy.But the fact remains that a majority of five justices, including Roberts, also declared that Congress’ power to regulate commerce does not authorize a mandate to buy a commercial product. This will tend to bar further expansion of the size and scope of the federal government.
Moreover, the Constitution’s limits on congressional power have now become, for the first time in seven decades, a political issue. They’re likely to remain one for years to come.
This would not have been true had not the constitutional case against the mandate been advanced by Washington lawyer David Rivkin, Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett and many others.
They did not quite prevail in the Supreme Court, but they changed not only the legal but also the political debate in a way almost no one anticipated three years ago.
Unhappy conservatives grumble that Congress can get around the declaration that a mandate is beyond Congress’s enumerated powers by labeling it a tax — or just by relying on five justices declaring it one.
But there’s usually a political price to pay for increasing taxes. That’s why Barack Obama swore up and down that the mandate was not a tax. It’s why Democratic congressional leaders did not call it one.
Roberts’ decision undercuts such arguments, now and in the future. Members of Congress supporting such legislation will be held responsible, this year and for years to come, for increasing taxes.
And the Constitution’s provision that tax bills must be originated in the House of Representatives means that the party controlling the House can effectively block such measures. That will be an argument for Republican congressional candidates for the indefinite future.
It should not be forgotten that the Supreme Court did overturn part of the Obamacare legislation, the provision allowing the federal government to cut off states from all Medicaid funding if they refuse to vastly expand Medicaid eligibility as the legislation requires.
Here, another novel legal argument, advanced by Vanderbilt law professor (and my law school classmate) James Blumstein, found favor with a majority of justices. The idea is that Congress can’t use the leverage of partial federal funding to force the states to increase the size and scope of government.
This seems like a principle that could work powerfully against big government policies. Medicaid has been vastly expanded over the years in this manner. Now the Court seems to be saying that that game is over.
The court’s decision elicited sighs of relief from the White House. The president’s entire administration is not in disarray.
But the basic assumptions that he brought to office have proven unwarranted. Obama followed the New Deal historians in portraying history as a story of progress from minimal government to big government and in arguing that economic distress would make Americans more supportive of big government policies.
The unpopularity of Obamacare and the stimulus package have proven the latter assumption wrong. Most Americans are skeptical about the supposedly guaranteed benefits of centralized big government programs.
And history does not move in one direction toward big government, even if it did from 1929 to 1945. Mercantilism was replaced by free trade in the 19th century, New Deal regulation by deregulation in the 1970s and 1980s.
The Supreme Court’s decision, while upholding Obamacare, tilts the legal and political playing field away from big government more than anyone anticipated three years ago, and probably for years to come.
Michael Barone, senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner (www.washingtonexaminer.com), is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.
COPYRIGHT 2012 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Once again, thank you for sending us your e-mails. We can’t respond individually, but we read and consider all of them. Send your question, comment, or complaint firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com.
Hello! I just read the article below:
Why I Escaped From New York and Californiaby Wayne Allyn Root, Wednesday, June 27, 2012. I want to be able to post it on facebook! Please add a share button! – Marita
Bidwell comment: Marita, if you go towww.theprojecttorestoreamerica.com, this article is under the Recent Articles. When you click the link, the article fills the screen. At the top right of the page, the Facebook icon is with the other Share this site icons. I hope this helps…
Also if you liked Wayne Allyn Root’s article, you might like this one as well… http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/25/to-defeat-obama-in-2012-tell-story-chicago-decline/
(On Stansberry Radio,) I think that Chris Martinsen was more persuasive on peak oil because he built his argument on the fact that oil on this planet is a limited resource. We are not likely to burn up all the oil because it will eventually become cheaper to manufacture a different type of portable energy. You have a good point that enhanced recovery methods will push production out into the future, but the decline will inevitably kick in and apply pressure for innovation. The stakes are high to keep our transportation systems running, I hope innovation wins. Thanks, Mike
Heffern comment: If you enjoyed the last radio show we recommended (the overwhelming positive feedback assures me that you did) tune in to the interview with a former Managing Partner at Bain Capital, Ed Conrad. This interview is one that I’d put near the top of my list. Porter Stansberry and Aaron Brabham interviewed a close business associate and friend of Mitt Romney’s, Conard talks in great detail about the benefits of rising income inequality, true facts about the economy, and the noble profession of private equity. Conard is a great debater and an extremely smart man.
I’d recommend making this podcast part of your weekly routine. A great thing about the radio show is they have a feedback line where you can leave messages for the hosts directly… They always love to hear listener feedback on any aspect of the show or ideas on who you would want interviewed next… 1-855-SA-RADIO (1-855-727-2346) firstname.lastname@example.org.
- In: American Crash 2011 | Barack Obama | Constitution of the United States of America | Economy/Money | Health Care | Health Care Reform Summary | Know the enemies of America | Obama admistration | Obama Against America | Obama and ethics | Obamacare | Obamanation | Obamcare repeal and replace | Progressives Movement to Destroy America | Supreme Court | Supreme Court rulings | Taxes | Unfunded liabilities | US in Revolt
- Leave a Comment
It is my belief that Chief Justice Robert did the people of the United States a great favor. YES, he did indeed rewrite the law when he named the mandate a tax and therefore constitutional under the Congress’s right to levy taxes. But in the arguments before the court in a last ditch effort to get the law passes the White house did argue that the mandate was a tax thus bringing up the subject and giving Roberts his opening.
Some are saying it was a win for Obama. No way! It was a win for the people because Roberts gave the Conservatives a hammer to beat Obama over the head with: A huge tax on ALL people and one that will grow and grow. He told us in his closing argument that he did not and does not judge the goodness or badness of a law, but only the constitutionality. He was telling the people that he was throwing it back out there for them to decide what kind of America we want and if we want the home of the free then we will get our buns out there in November and make darn sure as many others get out to vote too. If the mandated had been shot down we still would have been stuck with the other many, many monsters in this law!! but the people would have gone their way believing the problem has been solved. We the People owe Chief Justice Roberts a great debt for his ruling and the statesmanship (or brinkmanship!) for giving us this last chance to save ourselves. BB