The Obamacare Cat Escapes The Bag Once Again

The Evidence for repeal continues to roll in. (HT Michelle Malkin)

More ammunition has been given to conservative who want Obamacare repealed. Here's what happened during a conversation between Howard Dean and former New York Gov. George Pataki on Morning Joe:

DEAN: The fact is, it is very good for small business. There was a McKinsey study, which the Democrats don't like, but I do, and I think it's true. Most small businesses are not going to be in the health insurance business anymore after this thing goes into effect. I think Obamacare is a huge help to small business.

PATAKI: The only way it's a help is if they dump coverage.

DEAN: That's right. That's what they should do.

PATAKI: And employees all of a sudden have to go on the government exchanges. Which is what, of course the president promised wouldn't happen.

DEAN: It is going to happen.

This is very significant. The Washington Examiner reveals why:

The reason Democrats fought so hard to dismiss the McKinsey survey when it was released is because its conclusion undermines two major claims Obama made during health care debate: "If you like your health plan, you can keep it" and "It will not add one penny to the deficit."

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) premised their Obamacare score on the assumption that only 7 percent of employers would drop their employee health plans. If the percentage is closer to the 30 percent, as the McKinsey survey results predict, Obamacare's price tag would rise by almost $1 trillion.

Bottom Line: Conservatives were proven right and President Obama was proven wrong. Elections matter. If America doesn't put a conservative in the White House, and send enough conservatives to congress to repeal this monstrosity, then the worse is yet to come regarding the implementation of Obamacare, or what I prefer to call socialized medicine.

Background Reading:

Washington Examiner: Dean: Employers will drop coverage under Obamacare

Rush Limbaugh: Howard Dean Admits: Obamacare Will Kill Private Health Insurance

How Obamacare Repeal Could Get A Senate Vote

Looking forward to this funeral.



Now that the House has followed through on its promise to pass Obamacare repeal legislation, Democrats are now, quoting House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), "open to better ideas." Even President Obama declared that "I'm willing and eager to work with both Democrats and Republicans to improve the Affordable Care Act. But we can't go backward."

Actually Mr President, passing this monstrosity was backward. Despite Senate Majority Leader Reid's resistance, an up or down vote on repealing Obamacare can hit the Senate floor. From the Heritage Foundation:

"Once the Senate receives the bill, any Senator can use Rule 14 to object to the second reading of the bill. This procedural objection will “hold at the desk” the House-passed bill and allow the Senate to act on the full repeal measure.

If the bill is referred to committee, it will never get to the Senate floor. This procedural objection by one or a number of Senators will stop the bill from being referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP). If the bill is referred to committee, there is little to no expectation that the committee will pass the bill, let alone have one hearing on the bill.

Objecting to Rule 14 would hold the bill at the desk of the Senate and would put H.R. 2 on the Senate calendar. This procedure could be done with a letter or call from one Senator to the party leader. This would allow the Senate Majority Leader to commence debate on the matter when he so chooses. It is unlikely that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) would move to proceed to the bill, yet there is a procedure that any Senator can use to force a debate.

Any Senator can use Rule 22 to commence debate on H.R. 2 if they have held the bill at the desk. Rule 22, the filibuster rule, states:

Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question: “Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?”

And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn—except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting—then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

If any Senator can gather 16 signatures on a cloture petition, then they could file that petition with the clerk of the Senate. This would commence a proceeding that would end with a vote requiring 60 votes to shut off debate on a motion to proceed to a full repeal of Obamacare within two days of the filing of the petition. It is expected that Senate liberals would use Rule 22 to filibuster a full repeal of Obamacare. This would put many Senate Democrats in the interesting situation of voicing support for so-called “filibuster reform” while at the same time using the filibuster rule to block an up or down vote on Obamacare.

Once a bill is held at the desk, they can gather 16 signatures, then wait until the appropriate time to file cloture. They could do so next week or next year. If the courts continue to declare parts of Obamacare unconstitutional and the American people continue to despise this law, then the probability of full repeal may go up over time. At a minimum, Senators have the power to force a vote on full repeal of Obamacare if they have the will to do so."

So this vote can happen whether Harry Reid wants it or not. I believe that Sen. Reid is afraid of a vote. Some reasons come from The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth:

"If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ignores the call for a vote, if he refuses even to debate the issue, there will be hell to pay... Currently, in 2012, the Democrats are expected to have 23 seats up for election, including 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats, The Republicans are expected to have 10 seats up for election. Based on the results from the last election, the Democrats lost far more than the Republicans. If the issues are the same in 2012 (and I believe they will be...) and the Democrats become the "Party of NO" by denying debate and votes on bills in the Senate. Then the Dems will suffer for it badly, possibly even worse than they did this last go around. Also, there is the issue of redistricting which will also make re-election for Obama or for any Democrat in 2012 more difficult. So, in short, it isn't pointless. Victory is not measured just in clear wins in floor votes, but in what potential damage can be done to the opposition long term. Having worked in several campaigns, you learn those things... It's political jujitsu..."

In short, Democrats, especially in red states, have a lot to lose with this vote, because they'll be on record for the 2012 elections. When Obama vetoes it, he'll also be on record.

Background Reading:

WSJ: The Repeal Vote
Heritage Foundation: How to Repeal Obamacare in the Senate
The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth: Harry Reid Fears Repeal Vote In Senate

Another ObamaCare Side Effect: Death Panels Exposed Through Breast Cancer

Every day, it gets more revealing. (HT Michelle Malkin)



Any woman reading this should find this post pretty disturbing. Death panels & rationing has hit the breast cancer front. From the Washington Examiner:

"OnFriday, the Food and Drug Administration could doom thousands of breast cancer victims. The FDA will be considering the unprecedented step of revoking approval for Avastin, a drug that represents the last hope for women with late-stage breast cancer. About 17,500 women a year are treated with the drug, which cuts off blood flow to tumors. It does not cure cancer, but it does stop its growth and extend life.

Doctors and patients were then stunned last summer when the ODAC ruled, by a vote of 12-1, that the drug did not produce clinically meaningful results. Why did the panel deny the obvious evidence of Avastin's effectiveness? One member of the FDA's panel, Jean Grem of the University of Nebraska, said, "We aren't supposed to talk about cost, but that's another issue."

The Obama administration wants to ration health care in order to help pay for universal coverage and other Obamacare goodies. Donald Berwick, Obama's controversial nominee to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, has explicitly endorsed rationing. The CMS is now considering whether to refuse Medicare payments for Provenge -- another expensive but effective late-stage prostate cancer treatment.

Government bean counters were never supposed to determine what your treatment options are, and patient advocacy groups are justifiably outraged. If Avastin and other expensive wonder drugs are denied approval because of costs, proponents of government-run health care will have to no choice but to admit "death panels" have gone from rhetoric to reality."

This bears repeating: with the Federal Government's track record of bungling things like Social Security, Education, and the Post Office, why on God's green earth would you want it handling health care?? That's doesn't even make bad sense!

Background Reading:

Washington Examiner: Examiner Editorial: Breast cancer drug offers glimpse of death panels

A Healthcare Irony

Irony from the purple shirts. (HT Wikipedia)



In a glittering irony, Children of workers in an SEIU affiliate are getting their health coverage dropped. From WSJ.com:

"One of the largest union-administered health-insurance funds in New York is dropping coverage for the children of more than 30,000 low-wage home attendants, union officials said. The union blamed financial problems it said were caused by the state’s health department and new national health-insurance requirements.

The fund is administered by 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union. Union officials said the state compelled the fund to start buying coverage from a third party, which increased premiums by 60%. State health officials denied forcing the union fund to make the switch, saying the fund had been struggling financially even before the switch to third-party coverage.

The fund informed its members late last month that their dependents will no longer be covered as of Jan. 1, 2011. Currently about 6,000 children are covered by the benefit fund, some until age 23.

The union fund faced a “dramatic shortfall” between what employers contributed to the fund and the premiums charged by its insurance provider, Fidelis Care, according to Mitra Behroozi, executive director of benefit and pension funds for 1199SEIU. The union fund pools contributions from several home-care agencies and then buys insurance from Fidelis.

“In addition, new federal health-care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26,” Behroozi wrote in a letter to members Oct. 22. “Our limited resources are already stretched as far as possible, and meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible.”

Bottom Line: If union workers think they'll be exempt from this beast, think again. Your union bosses sold you out. You must ask yourselves if the union dues your paying out is really a good investment.

Background Reading:

WSJ.com: Union Drops Health Coverage for Workers’ Children

Time To Be Held Accountable

Two Organizations that have a LOT of explaining to do. (HT Wikipedia)





Some of the side effects of Obamacare have been felt all across the fruited plain. Mostly in the form of health insurance increases for workers. President Obama and the Democrats were held accountable for this monstrosity in the midterm elections last month.

Now it's time for those who supported this disaster to be held accountable. Specifically the AARP and the AMA. By engaging in crony capitalism, they sold out their members and this nation. From Legal Insurrection:

"The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) and American Medical Association (AMA) came out in support of the 2000-page plus House Democratic health care bills.

Do not be deceived by this alphabet soup of support. The positions of the AARP and AMA amount to political posturing divorced from the reality of the legislation.

The AARP position, much like that of Consumers Union, is a masterpiece of disingenuous and misleading prevarication, starting with this sentence in the opening paragraph:

"The Association’s support follows nearly two years of work with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to craft a health care reform plan that meets the needs of AARP’s nearly 40 million members and all older Americans."

No, there is nothing bipartisan about it. Republicans literally have been shut out of the House legislative process and no major Republican ideas were allowed into any of the current bills. This legislation is solely about the expansion of government, without consideration for any market or individual mechanisms to save costs and expand coverage.

The legislation also will be disastrous for senior citizens. The bill enacts $426billion in cuts to Medicare and other federal programs and $572 billion in tax increases (apart from the mandate tax), much of which will fall on seniors. The bill also will lead to de facto rationing, most of which will fall on seniors, as "bending the cost curve" leads to bureaucratic decision-making and guidelines as to the worth of a life later in life relative to the cost of care."

These organizations , along with all the others, need to have their feet held to the fire for this.

Background Reading (HT Mark Levin):

Legal Insurrection: Alphabet Soup of Health Care Delusions
Legal Insurrection: When Will AARP, Consumers Union and AMA Be Held To Account for Obamacare?

Top 10 Failures Of Obamacare So Far

A spectacular failure if there ever was one.



How has Obamacre failed America? Let me count the ways. From Human Events:

1. Premiums Have Gone Up
2. You Can’t Keep Your Current Plan And Doctor
3. National Budget Deficit Is Worse
4. More Children Are Uninsured
5. Small Business Taxes Increased
6. Small Businesses Health Care Burden Increased
7. More Government Spending
8. Senior Citizens Suffer from Medicare Cuts
9. Minorities Get Worse Health Care
10. Democrats Losing Elections

Background Reading:

Human Events: Top 10 Failures of ObamaCare After Six Months

Side Effects Of Obamacare

Complete with far reaching side effects.




Like many prescription drugs, Obamacare has side effects. From The Heritage Foundation:

"Aetna Inc., some BlueCross BlueShield plans and other smaller carriers have asked for premium increases of between 1% and 9% to pay for extra benefits required under the law, according to filings with state regulators.”

It’s exactly what conservatives predicted. While the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) did estimate that Obamacare would cause health insurance premiums to rise, conservatives correctly pointed out that the CBO’s estimates were wildly optimistic. James Capretta wrote at the time:

"For weeks, experts have been warning that the Senate legislation would lead to serious “adverse selection” in the individual and small-group insurance markets. Adverse selection occurs when, on average, the pool of insured lives becomes less healthy over time compared to a relevant comparison group. The Senate bill would require insurers to take all comers, with heavily regulated rates. These rules would help those with chronic conditions get less expensive coverage. But they would also drive up premiums for the young and healthy.
…
CBO argues that risk-selection problems will be mitigated by the presence of new insurance subsidies, penalties for those who don’t get coverage, a once-a-year enrollment window which will limit the opportunity to come back into insurance, and the tendency for people to comply with mandates even if they are costly. But, as others have shown, even with subsidies, the cost of coverage for many low and moderate wage families will be very substantial. Many people could reduce their costs if they paid the penalty instead of premiums and signed up with insurance only when they really needed it. Would the fact that they might have to wait a few months before getting insurance be enough to keep them in coverage all year? Hard to predict. In fact, as pointed out here, it appears that none of most-cited models used to estimate the impact of health-reform plans, including CBO’s, has an explicit capacity to calibrate insurance take-up rates based on the penalties imposed on those who go without coverage. Apparently, the premium estimates are based as much on judgment as analytics, and CBO’s judgment is clearly on the optimistic side."

Knowing this, is it any surprise that Democrats are distancing themselves from their glorious crowning achievement? It's one of the central reasons why they'll get hammered in a few weeks. A number of news outlets have reported on health insurance rate hikes. The last link is the most comprehensive I've seen to date, and well worth the read & view.

Background Reading:

Dallas Morning News: As insurers face health care law requirements, customers face cancellations
LA Times: Health Net is cleared by state to raise premiums
WSJ: Health Insurers Plan Hikes
Health Insurance Tips & Advice: The TRUTH about ObamaCare

20 States Sue To Repeal Obamacare

This time it's the States. (HT AR15.com)



Several states are joining the fight to repeal Obamacare. From the Associated Depressed:

" Twenty states and the nation's most influential small business lobby demanded Friday that a federal court in Florida hear their challenge to President Barack Obama's health care overhaul because they face imminent harm from its mandates.

The states, the National Federation of Independent Business and several individual taxpayers filed their response Friday in Pensacola federal court.

A key issue raised by their lawsuit is whether the federal government can require individuals to purchase health care insurance and fine those who don't.

"If Congress can regulate the failure to have health care insurance coverage, it can equally regulate the 'failure' to meet any other requirement it chooses to impose," Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum wrote in the response.

Though the health care mandate does not take effect until 2014, the states will suffer now from spending more resources on an expanding Medicaid enrollment and from losing sovereignty "to enact statutes or state constitutional provisions to protect their state citizens from compulsion in their healthcare choices," McCollum wrote.

Obama's health insurance requirements also would impose significant costs on small businesses, he said.

The court must hear the case to preserve individual liberties granted through the Constitution, said Karen Harned, executive director of the Small Business Legal Center of the National Federation of Independent Business.

"The federal government does not have the authority to regulate an individual's decision to do nothing. If they did, then they could force us to purchase any product they want," she said.

In a statement, Harned said the government's motion to dismiss was based on "political rhetoric and flimsy legal arguments" and was an attempt to distract the court from evaluating the case's constitutional issues.

McCollum, a Republican candidate for governor, is leading the legal challenge. Other states that have joined the lawsuit are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.

Virginia's attorney general separately sued the government. A federal judge denied the Justice Department's motion to have that case dismissed, saying the overhaul raises complex constitutional issues.

Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly voted in favor of a state measure to bar the government from requiring people to carry health insurance and penalizing those who don't.

The states argue the new law will require them to pay additional Medicaid costs not covered by the federal government, but that they cannot opt out of the program for low-income and disabled people because it has become too popular.

They maintain that violates the 10th Amendment, which says the states and people have powers that the constitution does not grant to the federal government nor prohibit the states from having.

"I'm really, really really perturbed right now about the intrusion of the federal government in the rights of my state," McCollum told reporters in Orlando. He said it was part of a pattern also seen in Arizona where the Justice Department has challenged a new immigration law.

Individuals who refuse to get health insurance will face a tax penalty, with exceptions for financial hardship and religious reasons."

With each passing day, more American realize that Obamacare is a bad deal. They also realize that King Hussein and the Democrat controlled congress is governing against their will. You'll see the results of that in November.

Background Reading:

Associated Press: States respond in health care overhaul lawsuit

Missouri Shows Out Against Obamacare.

The Latest to Resist.



By more than a 2 to 1 margin, Missourians voted to reject a key provsion of Obamacare. Proposition C would prohibit the government from requiring people to have health insurance or from penalizing them for not having it.

A couple of voters voiced their thoughts. From Fox News:

"To us, it symbolized everything," said Annette Read, a tea party participant from suburban St. Louis who quit her online retail job to lead a yearlong campaign for the Missouri ballot measure. "The entire frustration in the country ... how our government has misspent, how they haven't listened to the people, this measure in general encompassed all of that."

Missouri's ballot also featured primaries for U.S. Senate, Congress and numerous state legislative seats. But at many polling places, voters said they were most passionate about the health insurance referendum.

"I believe that the general public has been duped about the benefits of the health care proposal," said Mike Sampson of Jefferson City, an independent emergency management contractor, who voted for the proposition. "My guess is federal law will in fact supersede state law, but we need to send a message to the folks in Washington, D.C., that people in the hinterlands are not happy."

Not just the hinterlands, but most everywhere else. Then there's the first sentence of the NY Slimes article on this subject:

"Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved a measure aimed at nullifying the new federal health care law, becoming the first state in the nation where ordinary people made known their dismay over the issue at the ballot box."

Ordinary people?? As opposed to who? The ruling class? The political class? The Intellectual Media Class? This is, in addition to the rejection of Obamacare, a great example of the disconnect between Americans and DC & their propogandists in the lamestream media.

Background Reading:

Fox News: Missouri Votes to Block Obama's Health Insurance Mandate
NY Times: Missouri Voters Reject Health Law

More Side Effects From Obamacare

There will be mass resistance in November. (HT AR15.com)



One major side effect of Obamacare is that it includes an expensive new tax information reporting requirement, which will fall heavily on small businesses. From NFIB.com:

"Beginning in 2012, the new healthcare law requires businesses to send Form 1099s for every business-to-business transaction of $600 or more for both property and service, creating a tremendous new paperwork compliance burden for small business. This means that a small business owner will have to file two forms—one with the vendor and one to the IRS—for almost every business-to-business transaction.

he reporting requirement substantially increases compliance burdens on honest small businesses. Small business already faces tremendous expense in complying the with the tax code. In fact, according to an NFIB Small Business Survey, at $74 an hour tax paperwork is the most expensive paperwork burden placed on small businesses by the federal government. Here are some more effects of this new requirement:

* Increased paperwork and administrative burden for every additional 1099 form prepared. Small businesses lack an in-house finance department to track this kind of reporting and that is why complying with the tax code is already 66 percent more expensive for a small business than a large business.
* Increased costs incurred for mailing any additional 1099 forms and for hiring outside help to ensure that the business complies with the law.
* The law seeks to capture non-compliant corporations, but places the burden on the wrong taxpayer (the compliant small business).

Fiction: 1099 reporting is about healthcare because it is in the healthcare law.

Fact: The new requirement was added to the healthcare law in an attempt to raise $17 billion to help cover the nearly $1 trillion cost of the new law. Unfortunately, the burden will fall on tax-compliant small businesses. Even worse, while small business owners will pay to comply with the new requirement, there is no guarantee that the government will raise the projected revenue.

The IRS does not have the matching capabilities to handle the massive volume of paperwork resulting from this proposal. Many corporations file taxes on a fiscal year that is different than the calendar year in which 1099 forms are filed which could result in substantial errors in IRS attempts to accurately match information.

Fiction: Form 1099 reporting will capture lost tax revenue.

Fact: The tax gap is the amount of tax revenue the government is owed compared to how much it actually collects. Estimates place the tax gap at about $290 billion. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the requirement will actually reduce the tax gap:

* Current data is not available to portray an accurate picture of underreporting of corporations.
* The 2001 National Research Program data from the IRS only focused on the individual taxpayer. The data for corporations is much older.
* Data does not prove whether the business-to-business transactions are the problem or if underreporting is more prominent in payments over or under $600.
* Without better data to craft targeted solutions to close the tax gap, we should be very careful to avoid enacting proposals that would unduly harm and burden compliant taxpayers.

Background Reading:

NFIB.com: New 1099 Tax Reporting Requirements Place Expensive Burden on Small Business Owners

Obamacare Is About Redistributing Wealth

King Hussein's Latest Socialist Appointment. (HT Verum Serum)




Pitcured above is Dr. Donald Berwick. He was named to run the Center for Medicare Services. The White house line is that the “recess appointment” was needed to carry out the new health care law.

Heres a qoute from the good doctor that gives you a glimpse of his worldview:

"You could have a monstrous insurance industry of claims, rules, and paper-pushing, instead of using your tax base to provide a single route of finance (Single Payer System). You could have protected the wealthy and the well, instead of recognizing that sick people tend to be poorer and that poor people tend to be sicker, and that any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane must – must – redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and less fortunate."

That's all the proof you need that this administration is about one thing: Redistributing wealth. "spread the wealth around" as King Hussein would say. This so called health care reform is just a vehicle for doing just that. That's why 60% of Americans polled by Rasmussen want this thing repealed.

Background Reading:

Verum Serum: Dr. Donald Berwick: Turn Over a Rock, Find Another Socialist
Verum Serum: Socialist Dr. Berwick Gets Recess Appointment

Political Caption Of The Day

What Obamacare has come to. (HT Leo Alberti & Michelle Malkin):

Political Caption Of The Day

Obamacare: Truly for the dogs. (HT Rush Limbaugh):

A Massachusetts Miracle

Martha Coakley has conceded, and the GOP candidate Scott Brown has won the seat that Ted Kennedy sat in for 47 years. Even in the bluest of blue states, Massachusetts has rejected Obamacare and the Marxist agenda.

Take a look at the video that inspired the Massachusetts miracle. (HT Michelle Malkin and YouTube):

Obamacare Kills Employer Healthcare Plans

Obamacare. (HT Michelle Malkin):



The rhetoric from King Hussein and Congress is "If you like the health coverage you have, you can keep it."

Page 92 of the current House bill, HR 3962 tells another story. It states, with my comments in parenthases:

"The commissioner shal establish a grace period thereby for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-yeear period beginning with Y1 (2013), an employment based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 (2013) must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan (by the Government) under section 201, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 221."

Translation: In the next few years, you will lose your current helthcare coverage provided by your employer because it will have to change, or be phased out entirely to meet the government guidelines.

I don't know about you, but I'm tired of being lied to. This is change I simply don't believe in. Obama said himself that he's " an advocate of a single payer, universal healthcare system". That we can't "eliminate employer healthcare coverage immediately", and that he can see a "transition process" to single payer. This is the statist agenda, and Americans need to throw as many of them in congress out as possible in 2010. I don't want a government bureaucrat telling anyone what medicines they can take or surgeries they can have.

[Obamacare Timebomb. (HT Rush Limbaugh):]



Rush Limbaugh was right: Obamacare is a ticking timebomb. This stuff doesn't kick in until 2013 so we have an opportunity to fight this statist monstrosity with everything we've got. (HT National Review via Mark Levin):

National Review: Keep the Coverage You Have . . . But Only for Five Years

Obamacare: Grossly Underestimated

Obamacare. (HT Michelle Malkin):



The Republican staff on the Senate Budget Committee published an estimated cost of H.R. 3962 when fully implemented over ten years: $2.4 Trillion!! That's a far cry from the $894 Billion that Speaker Nazzi Pelocchio trumpeted. Politicians have a bad habit of severely underestimating the costs of their programs, and this is no exception. Democrat Blue Dogs in the House (an endangered species) should be very afraid with this estimate. Back in August, Stephen Parente, an expert on health-care financing at the University of Minnesota came to a very similar conclusion:

PARENTE: Over the last few months, my colleagues and I at the consulting firm Health Systems Innovations have provided cost estimates of health-care reform to both Republican and Democratic members of Congress, and we’ve posted these estimates on our website as well. We believe that the Democratic bills currently under consideration in the House and Senate would cost $2.1 trillion and $2.4 trillion, respectively—much higher than CBO’s figures.

Speaker Pelosi has reportedly said that she’s willing to sacrifice seats in Congress to pass the Democrats monstrous Obamacare bills. I say we take her up on that. (HT National Review):

National Review: $2.4 Trillion for House Health Bill

Obamacare = Big Government Bureaucracy

Obamacare. (HT Michelle Malkin):



How massive is the Federal bureaucracy that will be created by this bill? Let me count the ways. (HT Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)):

Boards, bureaucracies, commissions, and programs created in H.R. 3962, Speaker Nazzi Pelocchio’s government takeover of health care:

1. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)

2. Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)

3. Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)

4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)

5. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)

6. Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)

7. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)

8. Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 155)

9. Program for technical assistance to employees of small businesses buying Exchange coverage (Section 305(h), p. 191)

10. Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Commissioner (Section 306(b), p. 194)

11. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)

12. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)

13. Grant program for health insurance cooperatives (Section 310, p. 206)

14. “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 321, p. 211)

15. Ombudsman for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 321(d), p. 213)

16. Account for receipts and disbursements for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 322(b), p. 215)

17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)

18. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for “culturally and linguistically appropriate services” (Section 1222, p. 617)

19. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)

20. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)

21. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)

22. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)

23. Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p. 718)

24. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)

25. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)

26. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)

27. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 784)

28. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 786)

29. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 796)

30. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 804)

31. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 859)

32. Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 933)

33. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)

34. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)

35. Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 1058)

36. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)

37. Nursing facility supplemental payment program (Section 1745, p. 1106)

38. Demonstration program for Medicaid coverage to stabilize emergency medical conditions in institutions for mental diseases (Section 1787, p. 1149)

39. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)

40. “Identifiable office or program” within CMS to “provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles” (Section 1905, p. 1191)

41. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)

42. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)

43. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)

44. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)

45. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)

46. Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 1253)

47. Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 1254)

48. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)

49. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)

50. Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 1275)

51. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)

52. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)

53. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1301)

54. Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 1305)

55. Grant program for research and demonstration projects related to wellness incentives (Section 2301, p. 1305)

56. Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 1308)

57. Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 1313)

58. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)

59. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)

60. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)

61. Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)

62. Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2521, p. 1372)

63. Grant program for interdisciplinary mental and behavioral health training (Section 2522, p. 1382)

64. “No Child Left Unimmunized Against Influenza” demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)

65. Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)

66. Grant program for interdisciplinary training, education, and services for individuals with autism (Section 2527(a), p. 1402)

67. University centers for excellence in developmental disabilities education (Section 2527(b), p. 1410)

68. Grant program to implement medication therapy management services (Section 2528, p. 1412)

69. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)

70. Grant program for State alternative medical liability laws (Section 2531, p. 1431)

71. Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)

72. Grant program to prepare secondary school students for careers in health professions (Section 2533, p. 1437)

73. Grant program for community-based collaborative care (Section 2534, p. 1440)

74. Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)

75. Grant program for reducing the student-to-school nurse ratio in primary and secondary schools (Section 2536, p. 1462)

76. Demonstration project of grants to medical-legal partnerships (Section 2537, p. 1464)

77. Center for Emergency Care under the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (Section 2552, p. 1478)

78. Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)

79. Grant program to support demonstration programs that design and implement regionalized emergency care systems (Section 2553, p. 1480)

80. Grant program to assist veterans who wish to become emergency medical technicians upon discharge (Section 2554, p. 1487)

81. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 2562, p. 1494)

82. National Medical Device Registry (Section 2571, p. 1501)

83. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 2581, p. 1597)

84. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 2581, p. 1598)

85. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 2581, p. 1602)

86. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)

87. National Women’s Health Information Center (Section 2588, p. 1611)

88. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)

89. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women’s Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)

90. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1618)

91. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1621)

92. Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 2589(a)(2), p. 1624)

93. Grant program for national health workforce online training (Section 2591, p. 1629)

94. Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs (Section 2591, p. 1632)

95. Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (Section 3101, p. 1717)

96. Demonstration program for substance abuse counselor educational curricula (Section 3101, p. 1719)

97. Program of Indian community education on mental illness (Section 3101, p. 1722)

98. Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards (Section 3101, p. 1754)

99. Office of Indian Men’s Health (Section 3101, p. 1765)

100. Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board (Section 3101, p. 1774)

101. Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup (Section 3101, p. 1775)

102. Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects (Section 3101, p. 1809)

103. Urban youth treatment center demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1873)

104. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention (Section 3101, p. 1874)

105. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for health IT adoption (Section 3101, p. 1877)

106. Mental health technician training program (Section 3101, p. 1898)

107. Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1909)

108. Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators (Section 3101, p. 1925)

109. Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (Section 3101, p. 1927)

110. Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)

111. Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968)

A bureaucracy this big will be way more than the $894 Billion over 10 years that the government is projecting. Who pays for government programs when they go overbudget? YOU. That's why more people are against Obamacare than for it.

King Hussein's Tiresome Overexposure

Resist. HT AR15.com.



By now you know that King Hussein is going to be on all the Sunday shows and Letterman on Monday to boost support for Obamacare and his lagging approval ratings. I can't see this happening for a number of reasons. First, the ratings for his speeches have been on a steady decline. Second, Rassmussen reported that 56% disapprove of Obamacare, a new high water mark. Prediction: The Sunday shows already abysmal ratings will be even more so with King Hussein's appearances.

There's another huge problem for King Hussein that few have mentioned: Obama hasn't reveled a plan for public display. There's no website or bill in congress with his signature on it. There's only the bills that have been drawn up in the House and Senate. More Americans are fighting those with each passing day.

Obama is overexposed. I was at Whole Foods Friday night. What did I see at the checkout counter? Obama on the cover of Men's health Magazine. Yes, Team Obama bristles when the word "overexposed" is mentioned, but look at what King Hussein said on this subject:

OBAMA: I'm so overexposed, I'm making Paris Hilton look like a recluse.

Today that would be Taylor Swift or Kanye West. That quote was during the campaign. How much more is this statement true with all the press coverage, interviews, and magazine covers? The more he talks, the more people tune him out, and the more likely Americans will see his lies and kill Obamacare.

What am I doing on Sunday? Going to church. Then coming home to eat and watch football. (HT Rush Limbaugh, NY Slimes, American Barack Channel, & Rasmussen Reports):

Rush Limbaugh: Please Keep Talking, Mr. President
NY Slimes: Obama The Omnipresent
ABC: Does Obama Have Something New To Say?
Rasmussen Reports: Opposition to Health Care Plan Hits New High of 56%

Robbers Pose As Obamacare Supporters

Robbery has hit a new low. People posing as Obamacare supporters wearing madical outfits. Taking money and shooting residents. I already know that Obamacare would take money from Americans, but this is too extreme. These are the worse kind of con-artists.

More From Newsday:

"They were well-dressed when they knocked on the door of a Huntington home last month and said they had information about President Barack Obama’s health care plan.

That’s how they got inside to commit a violent home invasion on Aug. 29, a Suffolk prosecutor said Monday.

Benjamin Thompson had a stethoscope around his neck and Natalie Desir carried a clipboard with pamphlets, Assistant District Attorney Glenn Kurtzrock said after their arraignments in Riverhead.

A woman who lives at the house answered the door and said she would take one of the pamphlets. That’s when Thompson, 31, of Brooklyn and Desir, 26, of Nyack forced their way inside, Kurtzrock said.

He gave the following account:

Another man, Vance Jackson, had been hiding outside and also forced his way into the home. Jackson, 46, of Yonkers took the woman’s boyfriend upstairs and shot him in the neck, chased him downstairs and shot him several more times.

Thompson shot the female resident in the foot while she was sitting next to her 2-year-old daughter and also pistol-whipped the woman’s mother, injuring her head.

The three fled with about $4,000 in cash in a getaway car driven by Theodore Briggs, 40, of the Bronx. A fifth suspect who was outside is still at large."

These guys are no better than the SEIU thugs who injured people at Town Hall meetings. Michelle Malkin has more:

"Thompson had been previously convicted of attempted robbery and rape. Jackson’s rap sheet included robbery and criminal possession of a weapon.

The Daily News reports that the “two hatched the home invasion plan while waiting to meet with their parole officers in the Bronx.”

Imagine the national uproar that would be occurring right now if these home invaders had posed as Tea Party activists."

Those guys were creative, for sure. Too bad it's for the wrong things. Michelle's right: If they posed as Tea Party activists, It would be the lead story in broadcasts throughout the Matrix. (HT Newsday & Michelle Malkin):

Newsday: DA: Home Invaders' Ruse Involved Obama, Health Care

Michelle Malkin: Home Invasion Robbers Pose As Obamacare Activists

Debunking Obamacare Myths

Now that congress is back in session, Democrats are once again pushing government health care. King Hussein said in a NY Slimes op-ed that only his plan can provide "coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job".

Many Americans are concerned about this since over three million jobs have been lost since King Hussein's election. As a side note, people want jobs more than health care changes, that's why the polling data is where it is. The reason Americans can't keep or obtain health insurance if they move or lose their jobs is because of government.

Even if you move or lose your job, you can still purchase auto and home insurance. Federal tax incentives have created a system where currently, the majority of people get health insurance through their employers. Then the tax code punishes people who don't get their health insurance through an employer by denying individuals the tax deduction for health insurance that their employers get.

Next, you have state governments who have to approve insurance companies to do business in their states, with their mile long list of mandates. If Democrats really want reform, they could simply lift the government controls and allow health insurance competition across state lines. They don't have to wait until 2013 to implement this.

A second myth that needs to be debunked is that Obamacare will not cover abortions or illegal immigrants. This needs to be addressed because you have Democrats like Howard Dean and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), carrying Obama's water on TV angrily shouting that these are right-wing lies. With liberals, you usually find that the opposite of what they say is true. Ann Coulter really breaks this one down. From her post on September 9th:

"Then why did Democrats vote down amendments that would prohibit coverage for illegals and abortion? (Also, why is Planned Parenthood collecting petition signatures in Manhattan -- where they think they have no reason to be sneaky -- in support of national health care?)

"On July 30 of this year, a House committee voted against a Republican amendment offered by Rep. Nathan Deal that would have required health care providers to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program to prevent illegal aliens from receiving government health care services. All Republicans and five Democrats voted for it, but 29 Democrats voted against it, killing the amendment.

On the same day, the committee voted 30-29 against an amendment offered by Republican Joe Pitts explicitly stating that government health care would not cover abortions. Zealous abortion supporter Henry Waxman -- a walking, breathing argument for abortion if ever there was one -- originally voted in favor of the Pitts amendment because that allowed him, in a sleazy parliamentary trick, to bring the amendment up for reconsideration later. Which he did -- as soon as he had enough Democrats in the hearing room to safely reject it.

If any liberal sincerely believes that national health care will not cover illegals and abortion, how do they explain the Democrats frantically opposing amendments that would make this explicit?"

Another question to ask is why are we rushing this if it doesn't go into effect until 2013? If this is so important, it should go into effect on January 1 2010. None of this adds up. Until DC can come up with a health care plan that will make real impact, like tort reform, there's no way I can support anything that's currently sitting in congress. (HT Ann Coulter):

Ann Coulter: Liberal Lies About National Health Care: Fourth In A Series