The End of A Great Experiment

"Congress recognizes no limits on its power. It doesn't care about the Constitution, it doesn't care about your inalienable rights, it doesn't care about the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, it doesn't even read the laws it writes. America, this is not an academic issue. If this health care bill becomes law, life as you have known it, freedom as you have exercised it, privacy as you have enjoyed it, will cease to be." --Judge Andrew Napolitano

"Where in the U.S. Constitution does it authorize Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance? If Congress gets away with forcing us to buy health insurance, down the line, what else will they force us to buy; or do you naively think they will stop with health insurance?" --economist Walter E. Williams

Heritage Morning Bell - Healthcare

The Public Option Is Neither Public, Nor An Option

When Mike Myers’ Linda Richman character would get a “little faklempt” on the Saturday Night Live skit Coffee Talk, she would give the audience a topic to discuss while she composed herself, like: “The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. Discuss.”

If Linda were still hosting her show today, she could as accurately say about today’s health care debate: “The public option is neither public, nor an option.” Let’s discuss.

For the leftist base of the Congressional majority, the creation of a government-run health insurance company has been the defining issue of the health care debate. So, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has explained numerous times that: “The thinking on the public option has been that it gives consumers more choices and it helps keep the private sector honest because there’s some competition out there.” But is this true? Would the public have more choices if a government run health insurance company was created?

Five different organizations and offices have made predictions of how many Americans could end up enrolled in the public option, including: The Lewin Group, the Congressional Budget Office, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Urban Institute, and Health Systems Innovations Network. They all tell a similar story: the number of Americans that end up in the government run plan will greatly depend on who is allowed to buy into it, and how much they have to pay.

The Lewin Group–an independent health care analysis firm–was the first to estimate the impact of creating such a new public plan, when University of California at Berkeley professor of political science Jacob Hacker worked with them to create a model health plan for the Economic Policy Institute.

The left loved the numbers Lewin produced for Hacker’s plan, but they immediately turned on Lewin and began attacking its credibility once Lewin analyzed the actual legislation in the House.What so angered the left was Lewin’s finding that if the government-run plan were open to all employers, 103.4 million Americans would find themselves with government run insurance, including 88.1 million Americans who would lose their current employer-sponsored private coverage. What angered the left so much about this finding was that it exposed the fact that there is very little “optional” about the public option.

Those 88.1 million Americans would not be the ones choosing the public plan. Instead, it would be their employers who decided to discontinue their current private coverage, leaving the 88.1 million Americans no choice but to enroll in the government plan.

The latest version of Obamacare in the House “fixes” this problem by severely limiting who the government can enroll in the government plan. Under the new bill, only employers with 25 employees or fewer are allowed to enroll in the plan in year one (2013), in year two (2014) individuals and employers with 50 employees or fewer become eligible, and in year three (2015) employers with at least 100 employees become eligible.

In other words, the vast majority of Americans will not be eligible to enroll in the allegedly “public” plan. Worse still, even the poorest Americans are specifically denied access to the new government plan. The bill does expand Medicaid eligibility to 150% FPL but it also appears to deny access to those who are “eligible” for Medicaid.

This simply gives the false impression that poor people will get a choice of better care under this bill. The reality is all they get is a chance to join the substandard government-run Medicaid plan.

With these restrictions, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that under the current bill (H.R. 3962) only 6 million people would enroll in the government plan. The Lewin Group has not analyzed H.R. 3962, but did estimate earlier that if a public plan was only open to employers with no more than 20 employees, 21 million people would enroll. The difference between the two numbers comes largely from the fact that the CBO estimates that the public plan would have higher, not lower, premiums than private plans.

Since the left in Congress has chosen to make the public option the defining issue of the health care debate, millions of Americans are set to be sorely disappointed if Obamacare passes and they suddenly learn that they are not eligible for the so-called public option they have been sold.

The scariest part of Obamacare, however, is that the legislation also empowers the new Health Czar to unilaterally rewrite the regulations so that the public option can turn into President Barack Obama’s dream of “Everybody in, Nobody out” government run health care.

DMV Style Healthcare..Oh Goody Goody

Congress needs to be reminded of their severely limited powers.

"The construction applied ... to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate Congress a power ... ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument." --Thomas Jefferson

Federalist Digest/Patriot Post
Government

"The most revelatory passage in the so-called 'plain English' version of the health care bill that the Senate Finance Committee approved on Tuesday (without ever drafting the actual legislative language) says that in the future Americans will be offered the convenience of getting their health insurance at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

This is no joke. If this bill becomes law, it will be the duty of the U.S. secretary of health and human services or the state governments overseeing federally mandated health-insurance exchanges to ensure that you can get your health insurance at the DMV. You will also be able to get it at Social Security offices, hospitals, schools and 'other offices' the government will name later.

Page 19 of the committee's 'plain English' text says:

'The Secretary and/or states would do the following: ... Enable customers to enroll in health care plans in local hospitals, schools, Departments of Motor Vehicles, local Social Security offices, and other offices designated by the state.' This is the bill's most revelatory passage because it sublimely symbolizes the bill's true aim: a government takeover of the health care system.

You do not get food at the DMV. You do not even get auto insurance at the DMV. But under what The Associated Press inaptly calls the Finance Committee's 'middle-of-the-road health care plan,' you will get health insurance at the DMV."

--columnist Terence Jeffrey

Richmond Tea Party Press Release

It is beyond time for elected officials to make a decision regarding their loyalties. They took an oath to obey the Constitution. They swore to uphold the laws of the United States of America.
Republican or Democrat, from this moment on, need to decide if they are politicians or Americans serving the will of the people. From my position, all I see is politicians, and I've had quite enough of the Bravo Sierra from Congress. I will make it my life's mission to replace every single politician with someone who truly understands the Founding Principles.

Richmond Tea Party News Release!
October 13, 2009
They Should Be Ashamed of Themselves
“Senators Warner, Webb, and Congressman Cantor Reject 6,000 Petition Signatures”

Richmond, VA – Six thousand Richmond area residents have signed a petition protesting nationalized health care, but Warner, Webb and Cantor refuse to personally meet to acknowledge the petition despite multiple requests.

“The petition signatures represent genuine concern of taxpayers about government take-over of our health care system. The signatures were gathered through face-to-face meet-ups at festivals, neighborhood walks and in our workplaces. We expect our elected representatives to at least feign interest in the will of the people, but when we requested meetings to personally deliver the petitions, we were rebuffed at every turn,” said Sara James of Midlothian.

“These politicians have repeatedly demonstrated no interest in the opinions of thousands of voters in their districts. Warner, Webb and Cantor should be ashamed of themselves.”

Corky Mann of Henrico, a relative newcomer to the political process, expressed dismay about the lack of response by his representatives. “These politicians seem to forget that we hired them, and we expect them to be responsive and considerate of our opinions, not to mention the fact we expect, at a minimum, a reverence for the Constitution, which these health care bills clearly ignore.”

Mechanicsville resident Kevin Dumville agreed. “The absurdity of their refusal to receive 6,000 petition signatures can be easily demonstrated by the fact that when these petitions are laid down end-to-end, they stretch longer than a football field. How does an elected representative ignore that level of opposition?”

The petition states: “We the People of Virginia demand that the Federal Government remain within its Constitutional boundaries on health care. We reject any of the following: Government-run health insurance; One-size government-dictated package of health benefits; New job-killing mandates on employers; Federal medical mandates that violate State Sovereignty; Requirement on individuals to buy medical insurance coverage; Federal institution that controls private health insurance; Government intrusion into our medical privacy; Taxpayer dollars for euthanasia, or life ending services; Medical coverage for illegal immigrants at taxpayer expense.”

The Richmond Tea Party is a grassroots organization giving voice to the Silent Majority. Its mission is to work to reign in a Government that Has Grown Too Big, Spends Too Much and No Longer Listens to the Will of the People.

From the "Duh" File..

Before we get too far down this road, I just want to go on record as someone who opposes ANY government involvement in private healthcare. If the government wants to take care of the ones who don't have medical coverage, fine; just don't ask or force me to pay for it. Find another way.
Leave my plan alone, leave my employer alone.

and notice that the "American Association for Justice, a trial lawyers trade group, said the news from CBO shows that there is limited financial gain and much health risk"...uh huh..the only "limited financial gain" will be the fees malpractice attorneys charge.

CBO math says tort reform cuts deficit

Bolstering what's likely to be a key health care reform argument from Republicans, Congress' budget scorekeeper ruled that limiting medical malpractice lawsuits would reduce the federal deficit by $54 billion over 10 years.

The Congressional Budget Office - in an analysis that projects a nearly 10-fold increase in savings over its findings last year - said tort reform would cut costs by limiting the use of diagnostic tests and other services health care providers and doctors use to reduce exposure to lawsuits.

In explaining the increase in savings, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told lawmakers "recent research has provided additional evidence that lowering the cost of medical malpractice tends to reduce the use of health care services."

Tort reform has been one of Republicans' top health care reform proposals, but it hasn't been embraced by congressional Democrats. President Obama, in his address to a joint session of Congress last month, said he would consider tort reform legislation as part of his health care plan.

"I think that this is an important step in the right direction and these numbers show that this problem deserves more than lip service from policymakers," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican, who requested the analysis.

"Unfortunately, up to now, that has been all the president and his Democratic allies in Congress have been willing to provide on these issues."

The analysis was not tied to specific legislation, but cited reform ideas such as limiting pain-and-suffering awards to $250,000, limiting punitive damage awards at $500,000, limiting attorneys fees or implementing a one- to three-year statute of limitation.

Such proposals would reduce national health care spending by about 0.5 percent, or $11 billion in 2009. That includes the reduction in malpractice premiums as well as a 0.3 percent reduction in health care services spending from providers ordering procedures out of concern for being sued.

The group found that this year, health care providers will spend about $35 billion on malpractice liability, including premiums and awards.

The American Association for Justice, a trial lawyers trade group, said the news from CBO shows that there is limited financial gain and much health risk at reforming medical malpractice laws.

The "findings reiterate what we've always known, that medical malpractice claims have almost no effect on overall health care spending," association President Anthony Tarricone said Friday. "Along with the CBO's numbers and countless other academic assessments, the vast majority of empirical evidence suggests that there are only minuscule savings to be found in reforming our nation's civil justice system."

The CBO said there was not enough evidence to determine whether reforming medical malpractice laws, designed to let patients sue for damages resulting from negligent care, would have a negative impact on health outcomes. The group cited studies that showed mix results.

Republicans praised the $54 billion in potential savings.

"Doctors often order tests just to protect themselves from lawsuits, not to treat patients," said Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the top-ranking Republican on the Finance Committee. "The more federal health care programs spend on unnecessary tests, the less money is available for necessary patient care."

Mr. Grassley also criticized Democrats for not including tort reform in their health reform bills, though any substantial tort plan would likely have to go through the Judiciary Committee, which doesn't have jurisdiction over health care reform.

"It makes no sense that congressional Democrats have taken malpractice reform off the table," he said, citing the $54 billion figure. (Unless you remember that most of the campaign contrubutions to the dhimmi's comes from lawyers)

"That's not chump change. It's a no-brainer to include tort reform in any health care reform legislation."

Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus denied a Republican amendment to add tort reform to his health care plan during his markup session, arguing that it wasn't in the committee's jurisdiction. (Neither is forcing Americans to buy something they don't want or need, but thats never stopped them before)

Previously, CBO focused its analysis on similar tort reform measures on malpractice insurance premiums. This was the first time CBO based its analysis on how tort reform would affect doctors' use of health care services, based on recent research.

Covered for Life; Paid for by US

Congress has already exempted itself from Public Option
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor

One of the clearest messages from the Town Hall forums during the August congressional recess was that people want Congress to be covered by the same health care reform plan they impose on the rest of us.

Members of Congress presently get health insurance coverage through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), which offers enrollees nearly 300 choices among a variety of plans, coverages and costs.

The FEHBP covers federal employees and retirees, as well as Members of Congress, though the latter have additional perks of office that make their health coverage far better than that available - or affordable - for the vast majority of working Americans.

Public anger may explain why the White House is now insisting that Congress has not exempted itself from the Public Option, most notably in this new "Reality Check" video on the White House web site featuring former ABC reporter Linda Douglas, who now flaks for Obama as communications director for the White House Office of Health Care Reform.

The problem is, according to The Heritage Foundation's Robert Moffitt, the White House assertion is "incorrect."