Tag Archives: Reid Health care

Last week, Congressman Thad McCotter introduced a Bill HR 4500, The Freedom From Rationed Health Care Act, that invalidates a little known, hidden part of the Stimulus Bill. That hidden part of The Stimulus Bill created the rationing and enforcement boards.  Significantly, this “minor” fiscal trim makes the first part of ObamaCare null and void.

On November 7th, 2009, Speaker Pelosi marched to the podium and paraded her lap dogs to the microphone to proclaim “Victory” for herself, her Democratic House colleagues, and President Obama.  What about every other American? The “Victory” was the passage of the second part of ObamaCare, “The Health Care Bill.”  That’s right, the second part of ObamaCare is the 1,990 page bill that created 118 new boards, commissions, offices and bureaus. The same bill that will be paid for with (1)  $740 billion in tax increases,  (2)  a cut in Medicare to Seniors by $500 Billion, and (3)  a cost shift of $34 Billion to States in unfunded mandates.

This “Victory” was Pelosi’s and President Obama’s second victory on the health care front.  The first occurred under the cloak of darkness and obfuscation, in February 2009.  Hidden in The Stimulus Bill and passed into law were the ominous Obama, Pelosi, Reid rationing and enforcement health boards.

On that same evening of November 7th, few know that the GOP Leadership proposed an Alternate Reform Package, and each and every member of the minority signed on.  This Alternate Reform Package received no fanfare.  The problem was,  the President and Speaker Pelosi blocked the Alternative Health Care Reform Package from being discussed or even introduced on the floor of The House……it was “The Dog that was NOT allowed to bark.”  How open minded, how transparent and how American is that !?!

We cannot afford to ignore the GOP input.  This Alternate Reform Package addressed the main issues needed in reform:

• Empower the public,
• Lower health care premiums,
• Establish Universal Access Programs for those with pre-existing conditions,
• Reduce junk lawsuits,
• Prevent insurers from canceling a policy,
• Allow Americans to purchase insurance across state lines,
• Expand HSA’S, and
• Promote Prevention and Wellness.

On November 4^th, Glenn Beck allowed me to “borrow” his audience and to give them a frontline assessment of the health care legislation pending in Congress.

In my discussion with Judge Napolitano on the Glenn Beck Show, I hammered on the facts that (1) the Rationing and Enforcement Boards were already created and passed into law through the Stimulus Bill, and (2)  the President had already appointed the members, funding them to the tune of $20.6 BILLION.  When I pointed out that these boards were charged with directing healthcare “at the time and place of care,” Judge Napolitano expressed outrage at the prospect of these government entities insinuating themselves into the previously private and confidential doctor/patient relationship.  The biggest outrage is the fact that no one seems to know that THIS IS ALREADY LAW!  These rationing boards threaten your privacy, your control, your health, your treatment possibilities, and your future.

Enter Congressman Thad McCotter. He acted upon the information in my interview and added two very important Sections to The Alternative Bill :

DIVISION D—PROTECTING THE DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP

SEC. 401. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship or the practice of medicine.

SEC. 402. REPEAL OF FEDERAL COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH. Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, section 804 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is repealed.

With the addition of these two Sections, the subterranean health care coup within The Stimulus Bill, would have become NULL and VOID. However, by Pelosi’s and Obama’s block of the alternative bill the rationing boards survived.

Enter Congressman McCotter again. On January 22, 2010 he introduced a Bill, The Freedom From Rationed Health Care Act, that would make the health care portion of The Stimulus Bill extinct.

I thank those in Congress who were willing to listen to ‘the grunts on the front line of our health care system and to create the alternative Bill. I thank Congressman McCotter for (1) having the “guts” to call out the President, the Speaker, Senator Reid for their subterfuge in enacting the rationing and enforcement boards, and (2) for proposing a remedy for the unpalatable Democratic draught….not once but twice.

Health Care is too important to enact by default.  It deserves debate and dialogue. It is too important to relegate to back room deals, special interests, and bureaucrats with NO functional medical knowledge.   We need a simplified health care system that can deal with reality, not smoke and mirrors.  We do not need to add expensive bureaucratic gridlock that limits your access to treatments and care and decimates our health care delivery system.  We need to diagnose the ailments in our system, and identify solutions that do not create worse side effects and complications. The” dog that wasn’t allowed to bark” addresses these issues. Congressman McCotter’s new Bill should put the “rabid dog” being pushed by Obama, Pelosi and Reid in a cage for good.

It has become clear that health care reform in its present state has nothing to do with delivering quality healthcare to the American people.

The idea of universal coverage, with protection against insurance company wrongs (e.g., denying patients for pre-existing conditions and limiting the insurance company’s ability to deny coverage when you really need it) has been the sheep’s clothing cloaking a bill designed to destroy our healthcare system. In short, the proposed healthcare reform will doom us to a future that has the potential to make us sicker by limiting our access to screening exams such as mammograms, and limiting our access to physicians while making us pay more for the privilege.

The vote in Massachusetts was a stand against those in the government who are bent on telling us that they know what is best for us. I have been astounded by the complete contempt in which those in power hold the American people. A majority of the people in this country think the healthcare reform effort is going in the wrong direction. Although the vote in Massachusetts made it clear that there was major opposition to the current bill, I have doubts that the voices of the majority will be heard and this debacle will be stopped.

We have a chance to stop this and get it right. If The Congressional healthcare reform bill passes we will be saddled with:

• An enormous government bureaucracy run by a universal healthcare Czar that will ultimately decide what will be covered.  The Czar will be the arbiter on whether or not you get needed medical care like a hip replacement or gene therapy.
• A commission appointed by the president that will decide what treatments will be allowed for what diseases. (The commission is mandated to have only one physician.)
• A government run committee driven by evidence based medicine that will decide clinical outcomes. If the expected outcome is not achieved then the provider will not be paid.
• A  government able to decide whether a hospital will be paid for services rendered For example, if a patient is re-admitted to a hospital in a shorter time than the government deems appropriate, then the hospital will not be paid. It does not take into account how ill the patient may be.

For an excellent synopsis of the most egregious portions of the House bill HR 3200 read the blog by Peter Fleckstein.

Although Scott Brown’s election should be seen as a win for opponents of healthcare reform, we need to watch for actions that may be working against the rhetoric. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time that Congress pushed through an unpopular piece of legislation that people were adamantly against – does TARP ring a bell? Maybe the writing is already on the wall. On the one hand you have some in Congress saying that the healthcare reform bill is dead, but Senator Reid has recently come out with the statement that it would take about 10 days before Senator-elect Brown would be seated in the Senate….plenty of time for more backdoor deals, and arm twisting to happen.

By Barack Obama

It certainly was a holiday to remember.  Since I’m President of the United States, I was able to choose anywhere in the world to spend a long, lazy couple of weeks.  So, we got the 747 gassed up to head to Hawaii for the Holidays.  When I learned Health Care Reform might be held up in the Senate on Christmas Eve, many felt nervous that the holiday kickoff would hit a snafu.  Sure, it’s one of the most complicated and controversial bills in American history, but we had turkeys to baste and chestnuts to roast.

Great news, we cooked up a plan to slap a 10 percent tax on people who go to tanning beds — that ought to fix paying for all this!   Plus, Senator Harry Reid ensured the democrats who were going to bail on the bill were handsomely paid off, so we quickly squeaked out a win on that sucker before anyone had a chance to read it!  The partisan divide may now be bigger than ever, but I made it out of D.C. on time to head for some quality climate change —  to the land where palm trees sway for some holiday island fun — Mele Kalikimaka!

I didn’t want to start focusing on the failing U.S. economy until 2010.  So, while it was still 2009, I thought I’d stay in a rented $9 million oceanfront estate.  No sense in cutting back now –my health care bill will likely lead to government takeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy.  If I’m going to behave like a king, might as well live like one.

Someone suggested attending church during Christmas as it is a celebration of the Savior’s birth. But I’m really just here to relax.   Besides, I need to wake up early tomorrow– it’s Christmas Day and first item on my agenda is to work out at the gym! Churchgoing is for the other 80% of Americans, I still haven’t even found one to go to in Washington… but I’m looking really hard.

We decided to release 6 Guantanamo detainees back to Yemen — I really want to empty that place out. (The timing was perfect, seems everyone was focused on the holidays, so the press buried the story).   I say, let’s send them back home, or bring them to America for trial — New York City preferably.

On Christmas morning, I did what most American dads do — I got up at 6:30 a.m. and headed for some body-sculpting.

Even though Michelle told the press she got me several things for Christmas,  turns out we aren’t even exchanging any gifts… so, she was either making the whole thing up or taking back everything she bought for me. What’s more, she asked me in front of Oprah what I got her this year — I told Oprah I give “nicer stuff than I get” — but we left out the part about not getting each other anything at all.  Nothing says Merry Christmas more than skipping out on church and no presents for your wife.

Oh, almost forgot.  Some kid tried blowing up an airliner flying to Detroit on Christmas morning. Thankfully, I was able to wake up, get the workout in and return to breakfast in paradise before anyone told me.  I didn’t bother commenting on it for a few days.  That’s what I have a Director of Homeland Security for – right?  Besides, even though the guy made it through several checkpoints and lit a bomb in the cabin, Secretary Napolitano assured everyone ‘the system worked.’   By ’system,’ we mean that passengers who see a man lighting himself on fire should start screaming and grab a fire extinguisher.   After all, I don’t even have a TSA director in place yet.  I’m at the beach.

Speaking of the beach, my golf game at the fabulous Luana Hills Country Club was interrupted.  A family friend’s son was injured while horsing around and I had to go check on him… was okay, but it gave us all a real scare… Phew!  Reminds me I need to make an official comment on this airline bomber — oh well, back to the golf course.

Jeez!  Back in the lower 48 they are all yammering about national security, I mean, you would think we were back in the stifling days of W.  Any case, I issued a statement 6 days after the attempted attack – so they all need to get off my back.   Okay, got a date at the Kailua Racquet Club.

Well, turns out, the attack was terrorists.  From Yemen.  Hope this doesn’t throw a wrench in shutting Guantanamo, half of everyone there is from Yemen.  Any-hoo, we’ll look into it sometime when I get back from the beach.  Take care and, like they say in Hawaii — a hui hou!

POST SCRIPT: Pres. Obama told reporters he “wasn’t ready” to return to DC.  ABC News reported “The First Lady went so far as to try to rally the traveling staff and press to remain in Hawaii a bit longer. “Let’s stay!” she said “Are we all in? I’m trying to mount a coup here!”

Just before New Year’s, C-SPAN Chairman and CEO Brian Lamb sent a letter to Congressional leadership, requesting permission to televise negotiations around the final health care reform legislation. The letter was addressed to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, GOP Leader Rep. John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell.

The letter notes:

Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between the Chambers, we respectfully request that you all the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every American.

C-SPAN Health Care Letter –

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, then-candidate Obama promised to do exactly this; televise the negotiations on C-SPAN. From a debate in January 2008:

That’s what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process.

And at a town hall meeting in August 2008:

But what we will do is, we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.

Of course, just days after receiving the offer from C-SPAN, Democrats resumed private negotiations behind close doors:

Congressional Democrats are embarking on an abbreviated negotiation to save Reid the hassle of overcoming more procedural hurdles, but that means the resulting negotiations will be held behind closed-doors as the various stakeholders push for final changes. Liberal Democrats in the House have taken exception with the revised process, but most aides argue a drawn-out conference negotiation would give Senate Republicans too many opportunities to derail the process.

Rationing Medicare will not require clandestine meetings in smoke filled rooms. Simply reduce physician reimbursement to below the cost of delivering quality care, and free market forces will take care of the rest.

Medicare has already begun the process of backdoor rationing. Facing overwhelming budget shortfalls, Medicare needs to trim its books. Washington found a clever solution: eliminate the billing code for “physician consults.”

As a hospital physician, I often admit Medicare patients with chest pain or shortness of breath. If my patient needs urgent help from a cardiologist, I call a colleague for assistance.

Until December 31, 2009 the cardiologist could charge a “physician consult” fee for getting out of bed, coming to the hospital, and evaluating a patient with a potentially life threatening problem. Medicare paid $195.76 for this middle-of-the-night work (the same rate as when done during the day).

By eliminating the “physician consult” billing code, Medicare now advises the specialist to charge for a “hospital admission.” For two more months, Medicare will pay $175.67 for this service. However, without a change in current law, the physician’s reimbursement for a “hospital admission” will drop to $141.63 on March 1. This is why the “Doc Fix” is so important for working physicians and their Medicare patients.

Other recent and obscure changes in Medicare guidelines are potentially even worse.

As of January 1, Medicare will not pay the consultant at all unless the admitting physician uses an “HI modifier” when billing Medicare for the initial admission. This means in order to get paid, the consulting physician must rely on another physician’s billing practice. Many physicians remain unaware of this obscure change (Medicare guidelines were altered as recently as December 17). The result? Many consultants will be denied payment altogether—yet another way to “save” Medicare dollars.

Most physicians function as small business owners. Consider what becomes of this $141 per consultation (assuming they are lucky enough to receive that):

Interventional cardiologists pay approximately $50,000 a year for malpractice insurance. If they work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year this means they pay $25 an hour for malpractice coverage. If they spend two hours in middle of the night coming in to see my patient, this effectively cuts their salary by $50. Earning $91 for middle of the night work simply does not cover the rent, utilities, and salaries for office staff that must be paid each month to keep the office doors open.

Why should seniors care?

Even before these cuts, Medicare already underpaid physicians by 15 to 25 percent compared to traditional insurance companies. No business can survive when expenses exceed revenue—no matter how well intentioned the physician.

When the pending $500 billion cut to Medicare (used pay for healthcare reform) is added to the cuts outlined above, physicians will be forced to limit their exposure to patients on Medicare. They will shift their work to younger, healthier patients who are less complex, require less time, and have traditional insurance. This kind of “reform,” even as millions of baby boomers enter the system, will only exacerbate the physician shortage for Medicare patients.

There are ways to “bend the curve” without sacrificing our seniors. But sadly, Washington chose another path. Politicians chose to reward political allies and pay off key Senators rather than protect American seniors.

Several common sense reforms would “bend the curve” without backdoor rationing. But Washington continues to ignore these ideas. These solutions include:

1. End abusive medical litigation by passing patient-centered tort reform.
2. Let businesses purchase insurance across state lines.
3. Give younger, healthier Americans tax incentives to purchase low cost/high deductible plans and let them put pre-tax dollars into a healthcare savings accounts.

If Washington continues to protect political allies and buy Senate votes rather than pursue patient-centered reform, then let backdoor rationing begin. This is not overheated rhetoric. This is reality. Mayo Family Clinic in Glendale Arizona just announced it will stop accepting Medicare as of January 1.

Rationing Medicare will not require clandestine meetings in smoke filled rooms. Simply reduce physician reimbursement to below the cost of delivering quality care, and free market forces will take care of the rest.

Medicare has already begun the process of backdoor rationing. Facing overwhelming budget shortfalls, Medicare needs to trim its books. Washington found a clever solution: eliminate the billing code for “physician consults.”

As a hospital physician, I often admit Medicare patients with chest pain or shortness of breath. If my patient needs urgent help from a cardiologist, I call a colleague for assistance.

Until December 31, 2009 the cardiologist could charge a “physician consult” fee for getting out of bed, coming to the hospital, and evaluating a patient with a potentially life threatening problem. Medicare paid $195.76 for this middle-of-the-night work (the same rate as when done during the day).

By eliminating the “physician consult” billing code, Medicare now advises the specialist to charge for a “hospital admission.” For two more months, Medicare will pay $175.67 for this service. However, without a change in current law, the physician’s reimbursement for a “hospital admission” will drop to $141.63 on March 1. This is why the “Doc Fix” is so important for working physicians and their Medicare patients.

Other recent and obscure changes in Medicare guidelines are potentially even worse.

As of January 1, Medicare will not pay the consultant at all unless the admitting physician uses an “HI modifier” when billing Medicare for the initial admission. This means in order to get paid, the consulting physician must rely on another physician’s billing practice. Many physicians remain unaware of this obscure change (Medicare guidelines were altered as recently as December 17). The result? Many consultants will be denied payment altogether—yet another way to “save” Medicare dollars.

Most physicians function as small business owners. Consider what becomes of this $141 per consultation (assuming they are lucky enough to receive that):

Interventional cardiologists pay approximately $50,000 a year for malpractice insurance. If they work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year this means they pay $25 an hour for malpractice coverage. If they spend two hours in middle of the night coming in to see my patient, this effectively cuts their salary by $50. Earning $91 for middle of the night work simply does not cover the rent, utilities, and salaries for office staff that must be paid each month to keep the office doors open.

Why should seniors care?

Even before these cuts, Medicare already underpaid physicians by 15 to 25 percent compared to traditional insurance companies. No business can survive when expenses exceed revenue—no matter how well intentioned the physician.

When the pending $500 billion cut to Medicare (used pay for healthcare reform) is added to the cuts outlined above, physicians will be forced to limit their exposure to patients on Medicare. They will shift their work to younger, healthier patients who are less complex, require less time, and have traditional insurance. This kind of “reform,” even as millions of baby boomers enter the system, will only exacerbate the physician shortage for Medicare patients.

There are ways to “bend the curve” without sacrificing our seniors. But sadly, Washington chose another path. Politicians chose to reward political allies and pay off key Senators rather than protect American seniors.

Several common sense reforms would “bend the curve” without backdoor rationing. But Washington continues to ignore these ideas. These solutions include:

1. End abusive medical litigation by passing patient-centered tort reform.
2. Let businesses purchase insurance across state lines.
3. Give younger, healthier Americans tax incentives to purchase low cost/high deductible plans and let them put pre-tax dollars into a healthcare savings accounts.

If Washington continues to protect political allies and buy Senate votes rather than pursue patient-centered reform, then let backdoor rationing begin. This is not overheated rhetoric. This is reality. Mayo Family Clinic in Glendale Arizona just announced it will stop accepting Medicare as of January 1.

“Ever since Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform in 1912, seven presidents — Democrats and Republicans alike — have taken up the cause of reform time and time again,” President Obama said in a statement hailing the Christmas Eve Senate vote to take over 1/6 of the nation’s economy.  “Such efforts have been blocked by special-interests lobbyists who have perpetrated the status quo that works better for the insurance industry than it does for the American people.”

Note the date of TR’s “calling” for reform. It’s 1912.  Nationalized health care was part of the platform of the Progressive Party that year and every year thereafter. Americans are more familiar with the name Theodore himself gave to that third party bid. After being shot by a would-be assassin in Milwaukee, TR said it takes more than a single bullet to stop a Bull Moose. Instantly, the colorful sobriquet was applied to the Progressive Party.

What did Theodore himself think of his new-found allies, the Progressives? He was sincerely committed to reform. And he certainly thought he had been cheated out of the Republican Party presidential nomination in 1912. After all, he had won all the state party primaries in the limited number of states that held them. But TR also recognized that some of his Progressive supporters went over the top. For them, he coined the wonderful phrase, “the lunatic fringe.”

TR did not want to wage war against wealth, only against the abuse of wealth. He termed the plutocrats of his time “malefactors of great wealth.” In modern terms, TR was for jailing the Bernie Madoffs and freeing the Bill Gateses. TR understood that economic growth was essential to modern industry. He protected our natural resources—more than any previous president—but you could count him among those who stood for conservation. He believed America’s treasury of natural beauty could be conserved for future generations while enabling Americans of his own time to responsibly use and replenish their nation’s bounteous resources.

Today, it would be fair to say the lunatic fringe is in charge. The healthcare bill just passed in the Senate is a hodge-podge of giveaways and bribes. Why should Nebraska not pay Medicaid costs imposed by her senior senator on 49 others states? And why should Nebraska citizens be forced to pay for abortions in New York and California?

President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has issued an “endangerment ruling” on carbon dioxide. What must this ultimately mean for American industry? For the American population? Every human being discharges carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by the simple act of breathing. Can it be that Everyone Pollutes the Atmosphere?

Theodore Roosevelt could rightly be called America’s first “pro-family” president. He studied the Census Bureau statistics. He was deeply concerned about rising divorce rates and lowering birth rates. He understood that healthy children raised by loving, married parents were the true source of a nation’s strength. On a train trip to the West Coast, TR welcomed crowds of farm families that swarmed to meet the president. He praised them for bumper crops of wheat, corn, oats, and barley. But mostly, he welcomed a bumper crop of healthy American children. Among the majestic redwoods of California, he refused to speak until tacky billboards were removed from the stand of ancient trees TR regarded almost as a sacred grove. When will we have another president who is not only a tree-hugger, but also a baby-kisser?

The recent economic meltdown began in the housing industry. David Goldman, a savvy Wall Streeter, has written in First Things that young families with dependent children are the drivers of the home mortgage industry. And the U.S. has no more of these today than we had in 1969. This is the source of the real economic crisis. Theodore Roosevelt would certainly understand this.

How unfortunate that President Obama takes his inspiration from TR’s greatest error. Roosevelt was wrong to run on a platform that called for socialized medicine. He was even wrong to run at all in 1912. His Bull Moose candidacy fatally split the Republican majority and allowed the election of the disastrous Woodrow Wilson as a minority president. Nonetheless, for his undoubted achievements—including a Nobel Peace Prize awarded-imagine this—for actually making peace—TR deserves his place on Mount Rushmore. Will President Obama’s lunatic fringe demand he be placed there, too?

Across the country, families are gathering to celebrate the holidays. They will reconnect, reflect on the year past and voice their hopes and dreams for the future. At the same time, the United States Senate meets in a rare Christmas Eve session to pass legislation that, if enacted, will forever change the relationship between Americans and their government.

Today, on Christmas Eve, the United States Senate will pass the most corrupt piece of legislation in its history. And no one voting on it will understand what it does. And it will change the life of every American. Christmas has a bit of an asterisk this year.

Snowman credit: Riley

If you want to see how Obamacare will hit you and your family in the wallet, look no further than the inside of your medicine cabinet.  Open the cabinet door and you may see an antihistamine such as Claritin for allergies, pain relief medicine such as Tylenol or Excedrin, Pedialyte to prevent your kids from becoming dehydrated when they are sick, and prenatal vitamins if you and your spouse are expecting another one.

All of these items in your cabinet have two things in common.  One is that they are classified as “over the counter” (OTC) medicines and available without a doctor’s prescription. The other is that if you pay for any of these items with money in your flexible spending account (FSA) or health savings account (HSA) – and according to this guide from FSA administrator Benesyst , all of these are eligible expenses  — you will face an effective tax increase of up to 40 percent on these items in the health care bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives and is poised to pass the U.S. Senate.

Both bills restrict individuals with these pre-tax accounts to buying a “medicine or drug only if such medicine or drug is a prescribed” one. And ironically, this tax that will raise health care costs substantially by creating incentives for the use of more expensive prescription drugs even when OTC drugs are just as safe and effective.

Both FSAs and HSAs allow Americans to pay for medical expenses with pretax dollars. An HSA goes along with a high-deductible insurance policy and gives individuals a tax deduction for money saved that can be used for health care expenses. An FSA has similar tax advantages, but contributions to it are deducted from an employee’s salary, and money in the account must be used by the end of the year.

In 2003, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service ruled that OTC medicines could be paid for by FSAs and the newly enacted HSAs. In a press release that sounded unusually compassionate for the IRS, the agency stated:

Drugs are increasingly becoming available over-the-counter without prescription. Many health plans no longer cover the cost of these drugs as over-the-counter. While an over-the-counter drug is less expensive than the prescription drug, the cost to many consumers increases because the price paid by the consumer for the over-the-counter drug is greater than the co-payment by the consumer when the drug was covered by insurance. This is especially an issue for individuals who remedy chronic health problems by regularly taking an over-the-counter medicine.

Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow added in the release, “Since many prescription drugs have moved to the over-the-counter market, this action today makes paying for them a little bit easier to swallow.”

Specifically, the government ruled that since the tax code written by Congress did not specifically require that “only medicines or drugs that require a physician’s prescription be taken into account” for health expenses, OTC medicines were eligible. The ruling made clear that although health accounts could not purchase items for general health such as toothpaste, they could be used for medicines that treat specific conditions, such as an “antacid, allergy medicine, pain reliever and cold medicine.” Companies that administer FSAs and HSAs have developed extensive lists of a variety of OTC items that are covered.  The Benesyst guide fills two pages with an alphabetical list of eligible expenses that includes everything from analgesics to wound care.

But Section 9004 of the pending Senate bill and Section 531 of the House bill that passed in November changes the tax code so that “distribution for medicine” from HSAs and FSAs are “qualified only if for prescribed drug or insulin.” Yes, the bills are merciful enough to allow diabetics to purchase insulin under these tax plans, but if you or your family members need Pedialyte, prenatal vitamins or numerous other over the counter health items, you will see a tax hike that could be huge.

Since HSAs and FSA contributions are exempt from both income taxes and 15.3 percent payroll tax for Social Security and Medicare, and since these together can reach more than 40 percent of an employee’s salary, the effective tax increase on these medicines could be more than 40 percent.

And this tax change will almost certainly cost the health care system billions more dollars in unnecessary spending both to the government and private insurance plans. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the tax hike will bring in $5 billion in revenues over ten years – itself a drop in the bucket when compared to the bill’s new trillion-dollar entitlement – but that estimate doesn’t take into account behavioral changes as a direct result of this provision.

OTC drugs are much cheaper those available for prescription, but they could now be more expensive to individual consumers given that prescription drugs would still be eligible for favored treatment in the tax plans, and that insurance companies would be mandated to cover many of them. Consequently, any time a consumer has the slightest headache, the financial incentive would often be to see a doctor and get a prescription rather than go to the store and get medicine off the shelf. 

This could mean that billions will be wasted on the additional costs for prescription drugs in instances when OTC medicines could be just as safe and effective at treating the illness.  A 2005 study in the American Journal of Managed Care found that the Food and Drug Administration’s clearing of antihistamines such as loratadine (Claritin) for over-the-counter sale saves about $4 billion a year in health care costs. Ironically, the liberals and Democrats who normally rail against big pharmaceutical companies are now creating a huge windfall the firms that make expensive prescription drugs by penalizing users of OTC medicines.

The rallying cry for opponents of Obamacare has been “Hands off my health care.” In addition, they now could say, “Hands off my medicine cabinet.”

From FoxNews:

Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, who has faced a heap of criticism for appearing to trade his vote on health care for millions in federal Medicaid money, said he’s considering asking that the Nebraska deal be stripped from the bill. But he said other senators are looking for special treatment in light of his success.

Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, after securing a sweetheart deal for his state as part of the health insurance reform bill, said Tuesday that three other senators have told him they want to bargain for the same kind of special treatment.

“Three senators came up to me just now on the (Senate) floor, and said, ‘Now we understand what you did. We’ll be seeking this funding too’,” Nelson said.

But the Democratic senator, who has faced a heap of criticism for appearing to trade his vote on health care for millions in federal Medicaid money, said he’s considering asking that the Nebraska deal be stripped from the bill.

Though he defended the exemption as a “fair deal,” he said he never asked for the full federal funding that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ended up granting his state. Nelson said he instead asked that states be allowed to refuse an expansion of Medicaid.

“This is the way Senate leadership chose to handle it. I never asked for 100 percent funding,” he said.

Read the whole article here.

Jeebus H. Christ, it didn’t take long for the scope of ObamaCare to swell up like the ankles of a carnival fat lady after a day at work! ObamaCare isn’t even law yet, but Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) explains it all for us plainer than Sr. Mary Ignatius ever dared.

Despite the crappy housing market, the health care reform bill currently being debated in the Senate is only a “starter home,” you see. We’ve got to leverage the country into an unaffordable McMansion ASAP. Talking to the lefty Iowa Independent, the Daniel Ortega- and bee pollen-loving senator, gives a disturbing metaphor about the real goals of this historic (hysteric?) legislation:

“What we are buying here is a modest home, not a mansion. What we are getting here is a starter home. It’s got a good foundation: 30 million Americans are covered. It’s got a good roof: A lot of protections from abuses by insurance companies. It’s got a lot of nice stuff in there for prevention and wellness. But, we can build additions as we go along in the future. It is a starter home. Think about it in that way.”

More Harkinisms here.

Suffice it to say that this is exactly (and presciently!) why we titled our latest Reason.tv video “ObamaCare and Mission Creep: Why health care reform will end up covering much more than you think.” (Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions.)

Forget snowballs—throw that at your nearest representative.

Government programs almost always end up costing much more than they were supposed to. They also usually end up doing more than they were supposed to. Would ObamaCare be any different?

Some say ObamaCare would lead to death panels, even euthanasia classes. But you don’t have to side with those who warn of euthanasia classes to recognize that government programs often end up doing all kinds of things that weren’t in politicians’ original plans.

Call it mission creep. Politicians pass a program, and then the scope of the program grows and changes.

It’s happened with everything from state-level health insurance plans to the Troubled Asset Relief Program. TARP’s original mission was spelled out in its name—the government would purchase troubled assets from financial institutions. However, just over a year later TARP’s mission has exploded, and billions in TARP funds have gone to bail out General Motors, Chrysler, and struggling homeowners. TARP money may even fund another stimulus.

“The Best Laid Plans of ObamaCare” is written and produced by Ted Balaker, and hosted by me, Nick Gillespie. Director of Photography: Alex Manning; Associate Producer: Paul Detrick.

Approximately 2.30 minutes. For more health-care-related vids, go to Reason.tv or visit our YouTube channel.

After reviewing the latest version of health care reform emanating from “the greatest deliberative body in the world”, The Senate, I was transported to Whoville, target of The Grinch…..from this point forward renamed America. It would appear that “Your mean ones,”   Mr., Ms and Mr. Grinch (Obama, Pelosi and Reid) have heard and learned nothing from the town hall meetings and from all of the e-mails, phone calls, faxes and letters from ALL of us Whos.

The latest version of the Grinches’ health care reform is a carbon copy of the rationing of health care that passed the House in November. The core and the heart is three sizes too small in both versions, and cuts costs by denying and rationing care, the most inhumane and unethical means of cutting costs. However, Washington’s Grinches have added a couple of “presents” to further harm all of us Whos.

The Grinches’ first “present” is to “allow” everyone in Medicare, or who will soon be in Medicare, to pay for a larger percentage of the costs of this beast. How special is that? The Grinches Obama, Pelosi and Reid have decided to cut Medicare by $500 Billion over ten years to pay for their reform package, even though millions more seniors will be on Medicare in ten years. Let’s look at the data that the Grinches refuse to acknowledge.

According to the United States Census Bureau:

1. 40 Million Americans currently are ages 55-64
2. 50% of those aged 55-64 have at least 4 or more health care visits per year
3. 42 Million Americans currently are age 65 or over
4. 35% of those over 65 have 3 or more chronic conditions
5. 29% of those over 65 are in fair or poor health
6. In 10 years 62 Million Americans will be 65 or over

So, in ten years an additional 22 Million Americans will fall under Medicare, at the same time the Grinches will cut $500 Billion out of Medicare. Worse, they expect us Whos to believe that there will be no rationing of care by the already established rationing board from the stimulus bill ( Federal Coordinating Council For Comparative Effectiveness Research) and Medicare Commission from the Senate bill.

The Grinches further claim Medicare is the epitome of success and cost effectiveness and a program we should all look forward to joining. In fact, one of their “potential” presents, still on the drawing board, is to “allow” everyone 55-64 years of age the “opportunity” to join Medicare.  This is the same Medicare that:

Was established in 1965
Cost $ 3 Billion in 1966
Cost $325 Billion in 2005
Cost $408 Billion in 2009 (12 % increase every year for 43 years)
From 2000-2007 paid DEAD physicians 478,500 claims totaling $92 Million  (U.S. Senate Permanent Committee on Investigation)

From us Whos, thanks for nothing. Maybe the Grinches’ second “present” will be better. Um, no.

The second “present” is the ability to participate in the ‘Government Insurance Exchange” modeled after the federal employee health benefit program. The same program that:

• Currently oversees 4 ½ Million Federal Employees
• Is Administered by The Office of Personnel Management
• The Government Accounting Office ( GAO) found the cost benefit ratio was 51% higher than non-Federal programs.
• The GAO found the cost benefit ratio was 89% higher than large self-insured businesses
• The GAO concluded, “This program is highly vulnerable to fraud and abuse”
• The GAO revealed, “The misappropriation of carrier funds included embezzlement, using plan funds to finance UNION or employee organization activities and improperly charging the plan for expenses not incurred.”

Wow, on behalf of us Whos …..thanks for nothing Mr., Ms. and Mr. Grinch.  It becomes evident, “it is déjà vue all over again” when it comes to the Grinches and their health care reform plan for all of us Whos. Their plan is not about creating available, affordable or quality health care.  Their plan is about control of every Who’s health-care life. Once the Grinches control every Who’s health, The Grinches have the ability to control every aspect of every Who’s life.

In the real story of the Grinch, the villain had a change of heart.  In fact, when his heart grew three sizes, the Grinch learned the real meaning of Christmas….   Whatever the three Grinches believe in, Obama, Pelosi and Reid need to listen to us Who’s, and give back control of our lives.  Unfortunately, with our Grinches, their plan remains at least three sizes too small.

Pollsters like to say their surveys are like a snapshot, limited to the time and the picture frame in which they are taken. What we are seeing in polling on the takeover of health care by the federal government is a consistent opposition by the American people. No major poll shows the people supporting the House or Senate bill.

The poll most often cited by conservative talk show hosts is that of CNN/Opinion Research. This is the poll that shows the widest gap between those in favor and those opposed—25 points. Rasmussen reports a milder ratio of 16% between those opposed and those in favor. Gallup shows it a near-tossup: 46% in favor, 48% opposed.

What all these polls fail to show, however, is intensity. Intensity in politics is everything.

Those who know the most, who tell pollsters they are following the debate most closely—especially seniors—tend to be most opposed.

Younger people’s ranks include millions who are uninsured. They will be forced to become insured if these bills pass. And their relatively good health makes them cash cows waiting to be milked by the federal government. They are paying less attention to the debate. That’s because they pay less attention to all political debates. That may end soon.

Senate liberals, like Harry Reid, like to compare this health care debate to those other great debates—like ending slavery in the 1860s, like Civil Rights in the 1960s. There are some problems with those historical analogies, however.

Yes, it is true that if President Lincoln had submitted his Emancipation Proclamation to a popular referendum of the American people when he issued it in 1863, it might well have been rejected. But events on the battlefield, especially the bravery of black troops at Fort Wagner, literally revolutionized the views of Union soldiers and their families back home.

On Civil Rights, Southerners white as well as black, quickly came to view the passage of the 1964 act as “an idea whose time has come.” For the rest of the country, support among the majority was always strong.

What we have here is a major piece of legislation about which the most informed and the most attentive have formed strong, negative impressions. They are the majority and they feel it. They reject these bills and they are frustrated that Congress seems not to care.

Perhaps the worst thing that could happen to the Democratic Majority is for these deeply flawed bills to pass. The only way Capitol Hill managers have been able to achieve anything like deficit neutrality is through the transparent maneuver of taxing now for services four years off. Are they serious?

This is just another version of the slogan of J. Wellington Wimpy, the great pal of Popeye the Sailor Man. Older readers will remember Wimpy saying: “I would surely pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” Was he Senator J. Wellington Wimpy? I would surely give you health care in `14 for your tax revenues today. Hold the mustard!

We’ll be blunt. The ‘health care reform’ legislation under consideration in the Senate is the most corrupt piece of legislation in our nation’s history. Yes, we understand that is a strong statement and there have been other abominations throughout our nation’s life. But never before did corrupt legislation threaten to radically and forever change the live’s of every American.

Exhibit A is the outright bribe extracted by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Corn Huckster State) from Sen. Harry Reid. As a result of Nelson’s performance in his role of Hamlet in the health care deliberations, we will have two health care systems in this country; one for Nebraska and one for the other 49 states.

In its quixotic attempt to ensure everyone has health insurance, the Reid legislation greatly expands Medicaid eligibility. Because Medicaid is a program whose costs are split between the federal and state governments, this expansion in eligibility raise costs dramatically for states. States will be forced to either raise taxes or cut other services to accommodate the forced increase in Medicaid spending.

Unless that state is Nebraska.

Below is the text for Nelson’s bribe. Under this language the federal government will forever cover the costs of Medicaid expansion in Nebraska. Taxpayers in every other state will forever be responsible for the expanded Medicaid program in Nebraska.

Outrageous doesn’t do justice to describe this situation. Sen. Nelson also secured an exemption from a new insurance tax for non-profit companies in his state. Mutual of Omaha and Nebraska’s Blue Cross/Blue Shield won’t have to pay a tax other companies will be required to pay.

There is next to nothing honest about the entire health care debate anymore. The current legislative text was released just hours ago. The first votes are expected within hours. The health care sector accounts for 1/7th of our economy. And the “World’s Greatest Deliberative Body” will have just hours to consider its radical transformation. However much they say the legislation will cost, don’t believe it. Rarely has a bill been so manipulated to hide its true cost.

Consider this from the most recent CBO estimate of the cost of the legislation:

These longer-term calculations assume that the provisions are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation. For example, the sustainable growth rate (SGR) mechanism governing Medicare’s payments to physicians has frequently been modified (either through legislation or administrative action) to avoid reductions in those payments, and legislation to do so again is currently under consideration in the Congress.

And this,

The legislation would maintain and put into effect a number of procedures that might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time. Under current law and under the proposal, payment rates for physicians’ services in Medicare would be reduced by about 21 percent in 2010 and then decline further in subsequent years.

(Hey, American Medical Association, how’s that endorsement of this bill working for you?)

And, this gem:

It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.

Soon, 60 Senators will vote for this.

The Obama-Pelosi-Reid regime marched into office pledging to provide the most transparent federal government in American history. I was looking forward to that.

On Inauguration Day, President Obama told his senior staff:

The way to make government responsible is to hold it accountable. And the way to make government accountable is make it transparent so that the American people can know exactly what decisions are being made, how they’re being made, and whether their interests are being well served.

Mr. President, live up to your statement and ask Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to simply show us the bill.

How much have we backslid?  Just a few months ago, Americans were asking members of Congress to read the bills. But that was apparently too much of a challenge. Now we’re simply asking if we can see the crucial Senate health care plan.

Are we sticking our noses where they don’t belong? Are we wrong to take Reid at his word, based on a posting on his website, that transparency is a critical part of the health care reform process?  Reid’s statement from early November, entitled, “Transparency is one of the guiding principles of health insurance reform,” included this:

And as we head for the finish line, one of the most important parts of this process is transparency.

So Mr. Reid, SHOW US THE BILL.

Sen. Mitch McConnell put it aptly:

And here’s the most outrageous part: at the end of this rush, they want us to vote on a bill that no one outside the Majority Leader’s conference room has even seen.

As an aside, Sen. Reid also said this in the November 2 statement:

We have listened to the vast majority of Americans who know that a public option for health insurance is the best way to keep competition up, keep costs down and keep insurance companies honest.

Then why drop it, ole Har?  But I digress…

President Obama and Sen. Reid set the transparency bar for themselves – we didn’t.  It wasn’t some standard imposed on them by conservatives in a game of gotcha.  They made the pledge.

Yet with one of the most paradigm-shifting pieces of legislation of this decade, Sen. Reid won’t even show the bill, let alone post it online for taxpayers to see.

If the Democrats in Congress give two wits about the taxpayers of this country, they should show us the bill or vote “no” because average Americans have been excluded from the process.

We are definitely NOT suggesting that God, Mother Nature or even Zeus has an interest in whether or not the United States adopts socialized medicine. That said, if you wanted this health care-stink bomb to pass, you would be hard-pressed to imagine a WORSE time for DC to be buried in a blizzard. To pass ObamaCare (Version 7.0) by Christmas, the Senate needs to start certain procedures tomorrow…and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Brigadoon) isn’t even in town

With the Senate having gone to the dogs, I thought it was appropriate that I share with two of my doggie friends a little ode to Christmas.

When the AARP began its full-throated support for the President’s Health Care Scheme many wondered why this venerable organization would support a plan which would  cut hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare, mostly by putting strict price controls on the very popular Medicare Advantage program.

By putting enormous price controls (cuts) in the Medicare Advantage program, many seniors will be forced to look to the other Medicare supplemental offer, MediGap.   It just so happens that AARP sells MediGap coverage to its members.  The income generated from those sales accounts for 60.3% of AARP’s revenues, ten years ago, this income only accounted for 10% of their budget.

So, in short, the Obama Health Care Scheme puts hundreds of millions of dollars in AARP’s coffers by forcing seniors off of Medicare Advantage and into MediGap programs.  You would think that this was enough of a payback to the AARP for their support.  But Big Government now reveals another little prize that has been awarded to AARP in time for their recent official endorsement of the Senate Bill.

The AARP Foundation will have received over $100, 000, 000 dollars in Federal grants by the end of this fiscal year.  Last fiscal year they received less than $80,000,000.  That is a hell of an increase in this economy.  But would AARP sell out their membership for a mere $20,000,000 increase in Federal Grants?  It’s not quite as simple as that.  The bigger question is:  “Why does AARP continue to back a Health Care Scheme which seems to work directly against the interests of their members?”

The answer is:  At this point, the AARP doesn’t NEED to care about their members.  Frankly, they don’t NEED their members at all.

Let’s look at the numbers:

• The AARP annual membership fee is $16.00.
• In 2007 AARP earned about $500 million in MediGap royalties
• In 2008 it earned $652 million in MediGap royalties
• The 2009 numbers have not yet been released, but given the trends, it’s looking pretty good for AARP.
• Add to that the $100 million in federal grants (that’s your money they are getting for free)

When you look at those numbers and you realize that those MediGap royalties will go through the roof when MediCare Advantage is clamped down by the new system and you can see that all of that income just can’t compare with AARP’s membership’s measly sixteen bucks per geezer.

With this in mind, so much about the AARP’s recent activities makes sense.  This is why they jumped so hard on board with Obama’s scheme.  This is why they worked so hard against President Bush’s Social Security reforms (there’s no money in a Republican plan that REDUCES the role of government).

This is why they ask “How High?” whenever the administration tells them to jump.  Look at their uncharacteristic and peculiar support for the Entertainment Industry Foundation’s participation in President Obama’s “Call to service” on network television programming this Fall as exposed on the pages of Big Hollywood.  AARP went so far as to set up its own search engine chock full of volunteer opportunities including phone banks at Planned Parenthood (just what grandma wants their $16.00 to pay for, right?)

It seems that with MediGap income rapidly reaching a billion dollars and with hundreds of millions of dollars in grants, the real constituency for AARP is not the vulnerable seniors they claim to service, but the Big Government fat cats who push cash their way and force through regulations that put their competitors out of business.  Kind of makes that 20% discount at Hometown Buffet really worth while, doesn’t it?

In a recent article published in The Atlantic Jonathan Gruber, an economist from MIT was enthused over the Senate’s healthcare bill because of its kitchen sink approach to the problem of rising healthcare costs. “I can’t think of a thing to try that they didn’t try. They really make the best effort anyone has ever made. Everything is in here….I can’t think of anything I’d do that they are not doing in the bill.” This quote is a distillation of the problem I have with the whole healthcare reform effort. It seems like a case of throw it up on a wall and see if it sticks.

From the beginning of the debate and the resultant bills in Congress there has been no thought put into the root cause of the high cost of healthcare. As usual the players who were allowed to sit at the table were the ones who had the most to lose if the status quo really changed. Special interest groups (i.e., unions, hospitals corporation, medical insurance industry, pharmaceutical industry, and the AMA) each flooded Washington with money and controlled both the argument, and the perceived solutions for the mess that has become our healthcare system. At no point were physicians on the front line who deliver patient care or patients who are victims of the health insurance maze given a voice in the process let alone a seat at the table.

The reality is that the government’s insertion into healthcare has led to the high costs that we are living with today. It began when the Medicare reimbursements to physicians were disconnected from the costs of delivering quality healthcare. For over 10 years the reimbursements for physicians has dropped every year while the cost of supplies, malpractice premiums and overhead expenses have continued to rise. This is the underlying engine for the cost shifting to both insured and self pay patients that we have seen over the years. It has become an untenable situation leading physicians to seek paid positions in hospitals, form large single and multispecialty groups, opt out of the system and move towards a concierge model or leave the practice of medicine completely. Overall, this has led to a fracture in the doctor patient relationship, and a rise in the number and clinical expansion of providers such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners in an effort to fill the gap left by the physician’s need to see an ever increasing patient load per day to keep the doors open.

In addition, the range of services that are eligible for reimbursement has narrowed so that doctors are offering Medicare patients less service. This problem will only get worse if the congressional reform bill is passed. Expanding who is eligible for Medicare, controlling what medical services will be covered, determining standards of medical care through task forces (like recent recommendations about mammograms), and expanding the powers of the HHS secretary are all examples of the government expanding its role into healthcare delivery. It is hard to imagine that the involvement of the government will lead to a different outcome than what is happening with other government run entities like the postal system, Medicare and Social Security, each of which is an example of inefficiency and is either losing money or is in the process of going bankrupt respectively.

There are six arguments in favor of reform that have been stated as fact that will actually work against true healthcare reform.

1. Medicare coverage is less restrictive than commercial insurance

In reality, Medicare has a higher denial rate compared to the top commercial insurance plans. Expanding Medicare will lead to less choice in the form of an ever decreasing panel of physicians who actually take it and less coverage for services.

2. Medicare for all will improve access to doctors

Nationwide about 25% of doctors no longer accept Medicare. In some large cities like NY that number is as high as 30%. In 2010, Medicare has announced that they will no longer pay for consultations. That means that specialists such as cardiologists, gastroenterologists, ophthalmologists will lose over 25-30% of their reimbursements. This will likely have a chilling effect on access of Medicare patients to specialists. If and when the commercial insurance companies adopt this payment system, it may also lead to less access to specialists for all insured people.

3. There is a shortage of primary care doctors

There is a shortage of physicians. Less people are choosing to go to medical school and because of that an increasing number of students who attend foreign medical schools are matching at US residency programs. It is difficult to ignore the fact that the growth in the number of medical schools in the Caribbean (from 4 in the 1970’s to approximately 60 today) and a growing relationship between these medical schools and US residency programs has likely been tied to the need to fill empty residency slots.

4. Health care costs are driven by specialists who perform procedures

Healthcare costs are driven by many factors, but one of the major problems is the emphasis on treating chronic disease. Another factor are the administrative costs of insurance companies which account for approximately 23 cents of every healthcare dollar is spent. The treatment of chronic disease will be difficult to contain. For example, it is estimated that the cost of treating diabetes will be three times higher and increase to 336 billion by 2035.

5. Rising healthcare costs can be disconnected from Tort reform

The practice of defensive medicine is a powerful driving force in rising healthcare costs. It must be included to achieve real reform and bring down costs.

6. Medical technology is a cause of high healthcare costs

Taxing medical devices could have a chilling effect on innovation and access to state of the art medical devices (e.g., the hardware for knee/hip replacements) that make our healthcare system unique.

As it stands now, the healthcare reform effort by Congress will not achieve its stated goals. 30 million more people will carry insurance by mandate. However, it is not likely that they will get what they pay for. There will be a decrease in: 1) easy access to physicians; 2) access to recommended services/testing, and 3) access to state of the art medical devices. By contrast the insurance industry will get a boost in customers without having to take on increased risk from those people age 55-65 that choose to enter the expanded Medicare program instead of purchasing private insurance.

The rules of the game have not really changed. Insurance companies will still be able to deny payment AFTER the procedure has been pre-certified, they can still play games with computer claim software to underpay physicians for services rendered, they can still arbitrarily pay claims late, they can collude with each other since they are exempt from anti-trust laws, and they can raise premiums and shift the burden of costs to patients at will with deductibles and co-insurance fees. The only difference now is that they just get a bigger pool of insured from which to collect premiums.

Uninsurance is portrayed as being like a disease; it has even been called an epidemic. At a minimum, it puts you one medical bill away from bankruptcy, and you might even die from it, they say.

Yet some people I know, even doctors, do not want to buy health insurance.

And I know of at least one person who was very lucky to have had hers cancelled.

Here’s her story. She told an acquaintance, who happened to be a physician, about her eye symptoms. “Wouldn’t you know! I lost my insurance a couple months ago, and now this!”

The physician happened to have an ophthalmoscope in her truck, and took a look in the patient’s eye. Then she called a retinal surgery practice and told the receptionist the patient’s history, and the results of the limited examination she could do. She thought the patient might have a detached retina.

The receptionist asked what type of insurance the patient had and was told she had none.

“Oh, self pay,” the receptionist said.

The technician said to send her over. “And by the way, ask her not to eat or drink anything in case she needs an operation.”

The outcome? The patient was seen within a couple hours, diagnosed, and treated immediately. Fortunately, she just had a retinal tear and a lot of blood in her eye. A simple in-office procedure probably prevented a detachment. The bill: $900. She’ll pay it off over time.

“What’s an eye worth?” she asked.

Now, what would have happened if the Medicaid program hadn’t cut her off—because she earns $100/month too much? In that case, she wouldn’t have had to worry about the bill.

But—the receptionist would have had to say: “You’ll need to fax over a referral.”

A Medicaid patient can’t be billed, except for a nominal copayment. Without a referral, Medicaid can’t be billed. So if the specialist, or in this case subspecialist, sees the patient, he cannot be paid. Moreover, he is probably violating a rule and conceivably might be prosecuted for soliciting business (that’s called “fraud”). Discounts and freebies are marketing strategies, after all, and the poor and vulnerable have to be protected.

Not just any doctor can give the patient a referral. This doctor couldn’t. It has to be the patient’s primary care provider, who is contracted with the patient’s plan. And the specialist has to be in the plan too.

Say that a seizure patient needs to see a neurologist promptly to have his medications adjusted. Sorry, the emergency room doctor can’t write the referral. Neither can the hospitalist who is discharging the patient from the hospital. It has to be the “primary.” If the primary happens to know the patient, he might just send the referral. But most of the time, the patient will have to come in. The primary won’t want to risk getting an unnecessary referral or an incident of “inadequate documentation” on his report card.

For a retinal problem, there are probably three hurdles: the primary gatekeeper (who might not even think of the diagnosis), then the general ophthalmologist (who will make the diagnosis but can’t treat it), and finally the subspecialist. All probably have waiting times for appointments, especially for Medicaid patients. Most doctors can’t afford to see very many of those.

Not just Medicaid, but all managed-care plans have a structure like that. It’s part of the cost-containment strategy. I know of three insured patients who had retinal detachments. They all had premonitory symptoms, and they all—eventually—had elaborate and costly operations, as many as six procedures. They were “covered,” and they didn’t get a bill for $900, but they had a poor visual outcome that might have been prevented by prompt treatment.

With “health care reform,” most Americans, aside from politicians, would be stuck in such a system. The new idea is “to change the [fee-for-service] payment model to a system in which doctors and hospitals earn more by keeping patients healthy and out of doctors’ offices and hospitals” [emphasis added].

And we need more primary care providers and fewer specialists, the “experts” say. More people to “coordinate care” and determine eligibility and conduct smoking cessation counseling. Fewer doctors to actually give care or examine eyes.

The system will not prevent retinal detachments, or epilepsy, or leaking aneurysms, or appendicitis, or other conditions that need a doctor with specialized skills. It will just create barriers to direct, timely access to such physicians.

Insurance is supposed to help you pay bills in the rare event of a catastrophe. If it morphs into a scheme for emptying your wallet in advance, and then prevents bills by preventing treatment, we  just might be better off without it.

Many advocates of health-care reform are admirers of Canada’s state-run, no-opt-out, single-payer system. Indeed, in 2003, President Barack Obama voiced enthusiasm for such a health-care program.

Proponents of Canadian-style health care should meet Cheryl Baxter, a Canadian citizen who waited years for hip-replacement surgery, only to be told that her operation would not happen any time soon. Instead of waiting, Baxter did what an increasing number of Canadians are doing: She flew to a clinic in the United States, paid out of pocket, and had a life-altering surgery in a matter of weeks rather than years.

Baxter’s experience doesn’t just throw damning light on Canadian health care. The sort of clinic she went to in Oklahoma suggests a different way of delivering health care in the United States, too: A simple fee-for-service
model in which providers openly advertise their prices, service, and reputation. Rather than a frustrating, complicated mess of intermediaries such as employers and insurance companies, U.S. health-care reformers should think about bringing medicine into line with the same dynamics that help deliver great service at great prices throughout most other parts of the economy.

While Canadian health care is certainly cheaper than its U.S. counterpart (health care spending in Canada is about 10 percent of GDP versus 16 percent in the United States), it is not necessarily better or more equitable. As a recent National Bureau of Economic Research comparison concluded, “Americans are more likely to report that they are fully satisfied with the health services they have received and to rank the quality of care as excellent.”
Not only do Americans have far greater access to basic diagnostic tools ranging from mammograms to CT scans, the researchers found “the health-income gradient is actually more prominent in Canada than in the U.S.” That is, wealthy Canadians receive far better care compared to low-income Canadians than rich Americans versus poor Americans.

“A True Tale of Canadian Health Care” was produced by Dan Hayes and Peter Suderman. Interviews were filmed by Alex Manning and the segment is hosted
and scripted by Nick Gillespie. Approximately 5.11 minutes.

Reason.tv would like to thank the Independence Institute for arranging and underwriting travel to Canada for Suderman and Manning.

To achieve the goal of a universal, single-payer health system, the White House must secure the power it needs by amending the Social Security Act to transfer pivotal controls from Congress to the executive branch.  This transfer of power would ultimately give the President and the majority party, in this case the radical left Obama White House and Pelosi-Reid led progressive Democrats, the authority to frame and manipulate new policy, coverage options, and reimbursements, ultimately reshaping the future US health care system into a something unrecognizable in this country.

The deliberate setup for the White House power grab is built into the each of the health care bills and, if they fail, little-known twin bills called “MedPAC Reform of 2009” are waiting in the wings.  The bills, S.B. 1110 and H.R. 2718, craftily amend the Social Security Act and transfer the Medicare guideline and rule setting processes, from the legislative branch to the executive branch.  These bills offer cover to one another in case one doesn’t pass the House or Senate, respectively.  Remember, Democrats need to gain executive branch authority by amending the Social Security Act over Medicare regulations and physician fee schedules to transform the health care system in a single-payer, socialized system.

More importantly, Medicare’s regulations and physician fee schedules are the keystone to developing payer systems and reimbursement models across the entire health care industry.  And where Medicare goes, insurers follow.

To underscore the far-reaching power, a bulk of the states already reference or utilize the Medicare guidelines and fee schedules in determining policy, coverage, and payment, which impacts certain state-specific plans, including, but not limited to, self-funded plans, automobile insurance payers, and state workers’ compensation funds and plans – affecting even Big Labor.   For the executive branch to have such authority over Medicare regulations with little oversight is alarming.  This raises further issues of the powerful impact these federal mandates could potentially have on the states in stripping them of their own management of their respective insurance industries.

Specifically, the language in the Reid bill intentionally places unlimited power directly in the hands of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, including the ability to designate covered services, or rationing.  The Pelosi bill creates a Health Choices Commission and its “commissioner” is empowered to make the same decisions.  More alarming, both will have to take direction from the White House–and its unconfirmed czars–due to their executive branch affiliation.

In retrospect, Obama’s pick of Sebelius as HHS Secretary is obvious.  Aside from being a governor, Sebelius is the former Kansas insurance commissioner and has the ability to identify the strongest and weakest links–navigating her way quite expeditiously throughout the health care system.  And she’ll never disavow one of her first career choices — executive director and chief lobbyist for the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association.  That explains the blatant omission of tort reform, in addition to the fact that the trial lawyers are the biggest Democrat donors.

Another disturbing Obama appointee is health care czar Nancy Ann DeParle, who remains unconfirmed, and was the administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), now known as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.  In short, she “owns” Medicare.  And if you put Sebelius and DeParle together in a room for a few hours, you’ll get a formula for a single-payer government-run health care system – with Obama’s wish list met.

These designed appointees make sense of the intentions at hand to frame a universal or single-payer health care system.  Everything in this administration makes sense when you look at the overall agenda.  Even the branding makes sense.  The urgency, caring for the uninsured, taking advantage of the uninsurable, proclaiming it’s paid for,  packaging it as deficit-neutral, and amplifying that people are ‘dying’ in the streets.

The aforementioned MedPAC Reform of 2009 bills give the executive branch power it so dearly covets to devise the single-payer system.  Currently, MedPAC–the Medicare Payment and Advisory Committee (MedPAC)–is a Clinton-era independent Congressional agency established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that advises the Congress on issues affecting the Medicare program, including payments to private health plans participating in Medicare and providers in Medicare’s traditional fee-for-service program.  MedPAC also analyzes access to, quality of, and cost of health care.

The MedPAC bill designer, progressive Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV), has strategically branded the need for the bill by calling Congress “inefficient” and “inconsistent” –and who wouldn’t agree with that?

Therefore, the MedPAC Reform bill creates a new MedPAC–the Medicare Payment and Access Commission–and gives the Obama White House and its advisors over-reaching control of several factors governing the economy of the health care system.  The new MedPAC, which is exempted from judicial review, would have the authority to rewrite physician fee schedules, redefine medical necessity, evaluate coverage of treatment options, rewrite beneficiary definitions and coverage, and redesign diagnostic definitions and coverage.

The new MedPAC’s mission would also be to inform new research in health services to adequately address deficiencies in the evidence. However, in reality, this would apparently cripple new treatments and technologies by overshadowing progressive research and treatment algorithms by apparently emphasizing the deficiencies, not the benefits, equaling a denial of care and arresting development of burgeoning technologies.

Rockefeller also confirms that the new MedPAC will evaluate and test new and innovative payment models for provider reimbursement.  The MedPAC reform is being packaged under the guise of efficiency; however, by maximizing the volume of care delivered at the lowest possible cost, it appears that the payment and utilization schedule is a mechanism to control the pressure that would build when the health care system is overloaded with millions of new patients.

Finally, Rockefeller highlights another intention of MedPAC, which is to expand the capacity to evaluate basic and health services research for reimbursement.  This is the pinnacle power grab because this gives the new MedPAC and the executive branch the power to ration or deny care and decide what treatment options are available or acceptable as a whole.

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, commented, “As a congressional support agency, MedPAC’s mission is to advise Congress on Medicare payment issues.  If MedPAC were to become part of the executive branch as contemplated in the Rockefeller bill, then Congress would no longer have this support agency to provide technical support when making policy decisions.”  Senator Grassley also confirmed that he is not willing to abdicate congressional responsibilities for Medicare payment policymaking to a body that does not hold certificates of election.   He is correct that Congress wouldn’t have the support agency’s advice, but misses that it wouldn’t be Congress’s responsibility anymore—the policy decisions would be the responsibility of the new MedPAC—under the direction of the Obama White House.

What’s inherently disturbing is the fact that Rockefeller has been very outspoken in support of the public option and knows that this transfer of power must take place via the Social Security Act—in any form.  He even confirms that health care reform will not be successful, unless all authority is shifted to the executive branch.  He also rightly chooses his words–the “healthcare delivery system,” which is code for the public option.

Additionally, Rockefeller confirms the overall task at hand by stating, “Establishing MedPAC as an independent executive branch agency – which can only change through an act of Congress – is the cornerstone of improving our delivery system reform.  Health care reform will only be successful if we craft transformative changes.”  Transformative, as in a government-run health care system.

If there are any questions if the White House would flex its executive branch authority over an agency, just look the way of the EPA.  Congress stalled on cap and trade and Climategate has proven to be a problem, so the White House and EPA took matters into their own hands to keep moving on the agenda—to intentionally put regulations in place that further strangle American businesses, create unemployment, and further destabilize the economy.

Furthermore, with most of the Obama administration graduates of the Saul Alinsky school of thought, of course the main goal of all legislation and policies would be to support the overall intention of Alinsky, which is for the “have-nots on how to take it away.”

In any of these legislative scenarios–Pelosi, Reid or MedPAC bills–the White House gets the power it seeks–and needs–in order to accomplish the task at hand–a single payer, government-run health system.

These bills must be defeated; the power grab thwarted because after the Social Security Act is amended in any form these bills present and the rule changes take effect, it is not likely for the Act to be reopened and amended again.  The problem is Congress doesn’t even comprehend what’s at stake in either of the health care bills or MedPAC Reform–and you can’t stop something you don’t see.

ACORNcracked.com recently obtained an audio recording a speech by Robert Creamer, given at the Take Back America 2008 conference in Washington, DC, that was hosted by Campaign for America’s Future, an ultra-liberal organization.

In a March 19 session entitled, “Health Care: The Politics of Winning,” ex-convict Creamer and husband of Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), laid out his vision for health care reform.  Of Creamer’s 10-point plan, number 5 is:

To have a movement that both deals with that fact [that health care reform should be personal] and creates a movement we have to have two elements.  In a lot of campaigns we run are either about a populist kind of message and feel because it’s about people’s pocketbooks and needs directly.  Or it has a moral dimension that is inspirational and empowering – the civil rights movement, for instance.

This movement needs to have both.  To have a movement, to mobilize people, to inspire people, you have to appeal to their sense of meaning and purpose and something important.  So we have to create a sense that this is a historic battle. This is about you’re being part of something that will make you meaningful. (emphasis added)

If there is a legitimate crisis, does the “sense” really need to be “created?”  Or are Creamer, Healthcare for America Now, SEIU, ACORN and others creating a problem to suit meet their ends?  Then he talked about the campaign and how to defeat their opponents.

We have to spend a lot of time particularly now, in this next year, going after our principle adversary here: the private insurance industry. … We need to reduce the credibility of the private insurance industry as, I mean, let’s be honest, right?  Twenty five percent of America’s health care costs go to administration and advertising.  …  This is a political campaign.  We need to bring down the positives and bring up the negatives of our opponents.  And the private insurance industry is our opponent in this battle. (emphasis added)

In analyzing the defeat of HillaryCare in 1993, Creamer identified then opponents then and ways to make them allies now.  He specifically mentioned major businesses with huge legacy costs (ie. General Motors), small businesses, and the American Medical Association.

To win any major social change in America that restructures a sixth of the economy, we need some Republican support.  We need it in Congress and we certainly need it in the population.  Now, that doesn’t mean we say we have to negotiate with these guys, it means, you know, we want the train to be as long as possible, we just want the progressive vision to be in the engine here.  So we’ve got to beat the crap out of the Susan – well, if Susan Collins loses, that’s wonderful – but some of the swing votes in the Senate in particular to get them with the program. So part of our targeting has to be not just on holding Democrats with us, although that’s a problem for us, it’s also – we gotta have some of those Republicans. (emphasis added)

Creamer then suggested that liberals need to devise ways to draw conservatives into the debate.

We need to really go at their alternative but we need to establish that they have an alternative.  We need to establish as the political dialog, “everyone agrees there’s a health care crisis in America.  Here’s our plan, here’s their plan.  Now your only alternatives, public, are to choose one of the two, not the status quo.

Using language similar to SEIU president Andy Stern, Creamer articulated what is at stake:

If we get the presidency, we must deliver.  And if we do, we will create the investment of huge numbers of Americans in a revitalized commitment to the importance of the public sector and the progressive vision for the future.

Prior to Creamer’s remarks, pollster Celinda Lake gave her analysis of poll-tested phraseology that will best sell socialized medicine to an already skeptical, pro-capitalism American public.  A PowerPoint presentation, created by Lake for a similar meeting, can be seen below:

CelindaLakeHealthCare09pollingpresentation –

Let’s be clear: the need for health care reform (assuming for a moment there actually is a need), is seen in battle terms by liberals in power.  They need it.  They salivate for it.  It’s something they must deliver for their base and their biggest campaign contributors.

Pro-free market conservatives are dealing with an issue bigger than simple health care reform.  They’re dealing with a liberal movement hell-bent on securing a victory and delivering the bacon to the interest groups that can return them to power next year.

ACORNcracked.com recently obtained an audio recording a speech by Robert Creamer, given at the Take Back America 2008 conference in Washington, DC, that was hosted by Campaign for America’s Future, an ultra-liberal organization.

In a March 19 session entitled, “Health Care: The Politics of Winning,” ex-convict Creamer and husband of Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), laid out his vision for health care reform.  Of Creamer’s 10-point plan, number 5 is:

To have a movement that both deals with that fact [that health care reform should be personal] and creates a movement we have to have two elements.  In a lot of campaigns we run are either about a populist kind of message and feel because it’s about people’s pocketbooks and needs directly.  Or it has a moral dimension that is inspirational and empowering – the civil rights movement, for instance.

This movement needs to have both.  To have a movement, to mobilize people, to inspire people, you have to appeal to their sense of meaning and purpose and something important.  So we have to create a sense that this is a historic battle. This is about you’re being part of something that will make you meaningful. (emphasis added)

If there is a legitimate crisis, does the “sense” really need to be “created?”  Or are Creamer, Healthcare for America Now, SEIU, ACORN and others creating a problem to suit meet their ends?  Then he talked about the campaign and how to defeat their opponents.

We have to spend a lot of time particularly now, in this next year, going after our principle adversary here: the private insurance industry. … We need to reduce the credibility of the private insurance industry as, I mean, let’s be honest, right?  Twenty five percent of America’s health care costs go to administration and advertising.  …  This is a political campaign.  We need to bring down the positives and bring up the negatives of our opponents.  And the private insurance industry is our opponent in this battle. (emphasis added)

In analyzing the defeat of HillaryCare in 1993, Creamer identified then opponents then and ways to make them allies now.  He specifically mentioned major businesses with huge legacy costs (ie. General Motors), small businesses, and the American Medical Association.

To win any major social change in America that restructures a sixth of the economy, we need some Republican support.  We need it in Congress and we certainly need it in the population.  Now, that doesn’t mean we say we have to negotiate with these guys, it means, you know, we want the train to be as long as possible, we just want the progressive vision to be in the engine here.  So we’ve got to beat the crap out of the Susan – well, if Susan Collins loses, that’s wonderful – but some of the swing votes in the Senate in particular to get them with the program. So part of our targeting has to be not just on holding Democrats with us, although that’s a problem for us, it’s also – we gotta have some of those Republicans. (emphasis added)

Creamer then suggested that liberals need to devise ways to draw conservatives into the debate.

We need to really go at their alternative but we need to establish that they have an alternative.  We need to establish as the political dialog, “everyone agrees there’s a health care crisis in America.  Here’s our plan, here’s their plan.  Now your only alternatives, public, are to choose one of the two, not the status quo.

Using language similar to SEIU president Andy Stern, Creamer articulated what is at stake:

If we get the presidency, we must deliver.  And if we do, we will create the investment of huge numbers of Americans in a revitalized commitment to the importance of the public sector and the progressive vision for the future.

Prior to Creamer’s remarks, pollster Celinda Lake gave her analysis of poll-tested phraseology that will best sell socialized medicine to an already skeptical, pro-capitalism American public.  A PowerPoint presentation, created by Lake for a similar meeting, can be seen below:

CelindaLakeHealthCare09pollingpresentation –

Let’s be clear: the need for health care reform (assuming for a moment there actually is a need), is seen in battle terms by liberals in power.  They need it.  They salivate for it.  It’s something they must deliver for their base and their biggest campaign contributors.

Pro-free market conservatives are dealing with an issue bigger than simple health care reform.  They’re dealing with a liberal movement hell-bent on securing a victory and delivering the bacon to the interest groups that can return them to power next year.

ACORNcracked.com recently obtained an audio recording a speech by Robert Creamer, given at the Take Back America 2008 conference in Washington, DC, that was hosted by Campaign for America’s Future, an ultra-liberal organization.

In a March 19 session entitled, “Health Care: The Politics of Winning,” ex-convict Creamer and husband of Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), laid out his vision for health care reform.  Of Creamer’s 10-point plan, number 5 is:

To have a movement that both deals with that fact [that health care reform should be personal] and creates a movement we have to have two elements.  In a lot of campaigns we run are either about a populist kind of message and feel because it’s about people’s pocketbooks and needs directly.  Or it has a moral dimension that is inspirational and empowering – the civil rights movement, for instance.

This movement needs to have both.  To have a movement, to mobilize people, to inspire people, you have to appeal to their sense of meaning and purpose and something important.  So we have to create a sense that this is a historic battle. This is about you’re being part of something that will make you meaningful. (emphasis added)

If there is a legitimate crisis, does the “sense” really need to be “created?”  Or are Creamer, Healthcare for America Now, SEIU, ACORN and others creating a problem to suit meet their ends?  Then he talked about the campaign and how to defeat their opponents.

We have to spend a lot of time particularly now, in this next year, going after our principle adversary here: the private insurance industry. … We need to reduce the credibility of the private insurance industry as, I mean, let’s be honest, right?  Twenty five percent of America’s health care costs go to administration and advertising.  …  This is a political campaign.  We need to bring down the positives and bring up the negatives of our opponents.  And the private insurance industry is our opponent in this battle. (emphasis added)

In analyzing the defeat of HillaryCare in 1993, Creamer identified then opponents then and ways to make them allies now.  He specifically mentioned major businesses with huge legacy costs (ie. General Motors), small businesses, and the American Medical Association.

To win any major social change in America that restructures a sixth of the economy, we need some Republican support.  We need it in Congress and we certainly need it in the population.  Now, that doesn’t mean we say we have to negotiate with these guys, it means, you know, we want the train to be as long as possible, we just want the progressive vision to be in the engine here.  So we’ve got to beat the crap out of the Susan – well, if Susan Collins loses, that’s wonderful – but some of the swing votes in the Senate in particular to get them with the program. So part of our targeting has to be not just on holding Democrats with us, although that’s a problem for us, it’s also – we gotta have some of those Republicans. (emphasis added)

Creamer then suggested that liberals need to devise ways to draw conservatives into the debate.

We need to really go at their alternative but we need to establish that they have an alternative.  We need to establish as the political dialog, “everyone agrees there’s a health care crisis in America.  Here’s our plan, here’s their plan.  Now your only alternatives, public, are to choose one of the two, not the status quo.

Using language similar to SEIU president Andy Stern, Creamer articulated what is at stake:

If we get the presidency, we must deliver.  And if we do, we will create the investment of huge numbers of Americans in a revitalized commitment to the importance of the public sector and the progressive vision for the future.

Prior to Creamer’s remarks, pollster Celinda Lake gave her analysis of poll-tested phraseology that will best sell socialized medicine to an already skeptical, pro-capitalism American public.  A PowerPoint presentation, created by Lake for a similar meeting, can be seen below:

CelindaLakeHealthCare09pollingpresentation –

Let’s be clear: the need for health care reform (assuming for a moment there actually is a need), is seen in battle terms by liberals in power.  They need it.  They salivate for it.  It’s something they must deliver for their base and their biggest campaign contributors.

Pro-free market conservatives are dealing with an issue bigger than simple health care reform.  They’re dealing with a liberal movement hell-bent on securing a victory and delivering the bacon to the interest groups that can return them to power next year.

ACORNcracked.com recently obtained an audio recording a speech by Robert Creamer, given at the Take Back America 2008 conference in Washington, DC, that was hosted by Campaign for America’s Future, an ultra-liberal organization.

In a March 19 session entitled, “Health Care: The Politics of Winning,” ex-convict Creamer and husband of Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), laid out his vision for health care reform.  Of Creamer’s 10-point plan, number 5 is:

To have a movement that both deals with that fact [that health care reform should be personal] and creates a movement we have to have two elements.  In a lot of campaigns we run are either about a populist kind of message and feel because it’s about people’s pocketbooks and needs directly.  Or it has a moral dimension that is inspirational and empowering – the civil rights movement, for instance.

This movement needs to have both.  To have a movement, to mobilize people, to inspire people, you have to appeal to their sense of meaning and purpose and something important.  So we have to create a sense that this is a historic battle. This is about you’re being part of something that will make you meaningful. (emphasis added)

If there is a legitimate crisis, does the “sense” really need to be “created?”  Or are Creamer, Healthcare for America Now, SEIU, ACORN and others creating a problem to suit meet their ends?  Then he talked about the campaign and how to defeat their opponents.

We have to spend a lot of time particularly now, in this next year, going after our principle adversary here: the private insurance industry. … We need to reduce the credibility of the private insurance industry as, I mean, let’s be honest, right?  Twenty five percent of America’s health care costs go to administration and advertising.  …  This is a political campaign.  We need to bring down the positives and bring up the negatives of our opponents.  And the private insurance industry is our opponent in this battle. (emphasis added)

In analyzing the defeat of HillaryCare in 1993, Creamer identified then opponents then and ways to make them allies now.  He specifically mentioned major businesses with huge legacy costs (ie. General Motors), small businesses, and the American Medical Association.

To win any major social change in America that restructures a sixth of the economy, we need some Republican support.  We need it in Congress and we certainly need it in the population.  Now, that doesn’t mean we say we have to negotiate with these guys, it means, you know, we want the train to be as long as possible, we just want the progressive vision to be in the engine here.  So we’ve got to beat the crap out of the Susan – well, if Susan Collins loses, that’s wonderful – but some of the swing votes in the Senate in particular to get them with the program. So part of our targeting has to be not just on holding Democrats with us, although that’s a problem for us, it’s also – we gotta have some of those Republicans. (emphasis added)

Creamer then suggested that liberals need to devise ways to draw conservatives into the debate.

We need to really go at their alternative but we need to establish that they have an alternative.  We need to establish as the political dialog, “everyone agrees there’s a health care crisis in America.  Here’s our plan, here’s their plan.  Now your only alternatives, public, are to choose one of the two, not the status quo.

Using language similar to SEIU president Andy Stern, Creamer articulated what is at stake:

If we get the presidency, we must deliver.  And if we do, we will create the investment of huge numbers of Americans in a revitalized commitment to the importance of the public sector and the progressive vision for the future.

Prior to Creamer’s remarks, pollster Celinda Lake gave her analysis of poll-tested phraseology that will best sell socialized medicine to an already skeptical, pro-capitalism American public.  A PowerPoint presentation, created by Lake for a similar meeting, can be seen below:

CelindaLakeHealthCare09pollingpresentation –

Let’s be clear: the need for health care reform (assuming for a moment there actually is a need), is seen in battle terms by liberals in power.  They need it.  They salivate for it.  It’s something they must deliver for their base and their biggest campaign contributors.

Pro-free market conservatives are dealing with an issue bigger than simple health care reform.  They’re dealing with a liberal movement hell-bent on securing a victory and delivering the bacon to the interest groups that can return them to power next year.

ACORNcracked.com recently obtained an audio recording a speech by Robert Creamer, given at the Take Back America 2008 conference in Washington, DC, that was hosted by Campaign for America’s Future, an ultra-liberal organization.

In a March 19 session entitled, “Health Care: The Politics of Winning,” ex-convict Creamer and husband of Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), laid out his vision for health care reform.  Of Creamer’s 10-point plan, number 5 is:

To have a movement that both deals with that fact [that health care reform should be personal] and creates a movement we have to have two elements.  In a lot of campaigns we run are either about a populist kind of message and feel because it’s about people’s pocketbooks and needs directly.  Or it has a moral dimension that is inspirational and empowering – the civil rights movement, for instance.

This movement needs to have both.  To have a movement, to mobilize people, to inspire people, you have to appeal to their sense of meaning and purpose and something important.  So we have to create a sense that this is a historic battle. This is about you’re being part of something that will make you meaningful. (emphasis added)

If there is a legitimate crisis, does the “sense” really need to be “created?”  Or are Creamer, Healthcare for America Now, SEIU, ACORN and others creating a problem to suit meet their ends?  Then he talked about the campaign and how to defeat their opponents.

We have to spend a lot of time particularly now, in this next year, going after our principle adversary here: the private insurance industry. … We need to reduce the credibility of the private insurance industry as, I mean, let’s be honest, right?  Twenty five percent of America’s health care costs go to administration and advertising.  …  This is a political campaign.  We need to bring down the positives and bring up the negatives of our opponents.  And the private insurance industry is our opponent in this battle. (emphasis added)

In analyzing the defeat of HillaryCare in 1993, Creamer identified then opponents then and ways to make them allies now.  He specifically mentioned major businesses with huge legacy costs (ie. General Motors), small businesses, and the American Medical Association.

To win any major social change in America that restructures a sixth of the economy, we need some Republican support.  We need it in Congress and we certainly need it in the population.  Now, that doesn’t mean we say we have to negotiate with these guys, it means, you know, we want the train to be as long as possible, we just want the progressive vision to be in the engine here.  So we’ve got to beat the crap out of the Susan – well, if Susan Collins loses, that’s wonderful – but some of the swing votes in the Senate in particular to get them with the program. So part of our targeting has to be not just on holding Democrats with us, although that’s a problem for us, it’s also – we gotta have some of those Republicans. (emphasis added)

Creamer then suggested that liberals need to devise ways to draw conservatives into the debate.

We need to really go at their alternative but we need to establish that they have an alternative.  We need to establish as the political dialog, “everyone agrees there’s a health care crisis in America.  Here’s our plan, here’s their plan.  Now your only alternatives, public, are to choose one of the two, not the status quo.

Using language similar to SEIU president Andy Stern, Creamer articulated what is at stake:

If we get the presidency, we must deliver.  And if we do, we will create the investment of huge numbers of Americans in a revitalized commitment to the importance of the public sector and the progressive vision for the future.

Prior to Creamer’s remarks, pollster Celinda Lake gave her analysis of poll-tested phraseology that will best sell socialized medicine to an already skeptical, pro-capitalism American public.  A PowerPoint presentation, created by Lake for a similar meeting, can be seen below:

CelindaLakeHealthCare09pollingpresentation –

Let’s be clear: the need for health care reform (assuming for a moment there actually is a need), is seen in battle terms by liberals in power.  They need it.  They salivate for it.  It’s something they must deliver for their base and their biggest campaign contributors.

Pro-free market conservatives are dealing with an issue bigger than simple health care reform.  They’re dealing with a liberal movement hell-bent on securing a victory and delivering the bacon to the interest groups that can return them to power next year.

ACORNcracked.com recently obtained an audio recording a speech by Robert Creamer, given at the Take Back America 2008 conference in Washington, DC, that was hosted by Campaign for America’s Future, an ultra-liberal organization.

In a March 19 session entitled, “Health Care: The Politics of Winning,” ex-convict Creamer and husband of Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), laid out his vision for health care reform.  Of Creamer’s 10-point plan, number 5 is:

To have a movement that both deals with that fact [that health care reform should be personal] and creates a movement we have to have two elements.  In a lot of campaigns we run are either about a populist kind of message and feel because it’s about people’s pocketbooks and needs directly.  Or it has a moral dimension that is inspirational and empowering – the civil rights movement, for instance.

This movement needs to have both.  To have a movement, to mobilize people, to inspire people, you have to appeal to their sense of meaning and purpose and something important.  So we have to create a sense that this is a historic battle. This is about you’re being part of something that will make you meaningful. (emphasis added)

If there is a legitimate crisis, does the “sense” really need to be “created?”  Or are Creamer, Healthcare for America Now, SEIU, ACORN and others creating a problem to suit meet their ends?  Then he talked about the campaign and how to defeat their opponents.

We have to spend a lot of time particularly now, in this next year, going after our principle adversary here: the private insurance industry. … We need to reduce the credibility of the private insurance industry as, I mean, let’s be honest, right?  Twenty five percent of America’s health care costs go to administration and advertising.  …  This is a political campaign.  We need to bring down the positives and bring up the negatives of our opponents.  And the private insurance industry is our opponent in this battle. (emphasis added)

In analyzing the defeat of HillaryCare in 1993, Creamer identified then opponents then and ways to make them allies now.  He specifically mentioned major businesses with huge legacy costs (ie. General Motors), small businesses, and the American Medical Association.

To win any major social change in America that restructures a sixth of the economy, we need some Republican support.  We need it in Congress and we certainly need it in the population.  Now, that doesn’t mean we say we have to negotiate with these guys, it means, you know, we want the train to be as long as possible, we just want the progressive vision to be in the engine here.  So we’ve got to beat the crap out of the Susan – well, if Susan Collins loses, that’s wonderful – but some of the swing votes in the Senate in particular to get them with the program. So part of our targeting has to be not just on holding Democrats with us, although that’s a problem for us, it’s also – we gotta have some of those Republicans. (emphasis added)

Creamer then suggested that liberals need to devise ways to draw conservatives into the debate.

We need to really go at their alternative but we need to establish that they have an alternative.  We need to establish as the political dialog, “everyone agrees there’s a health care crisis in America.  Here’s our plan, here’s their plan.  Now your only alternatives, public, are to choose one of the two, not the status quo.

Using language similar to SEIU president Andy Stern, Creamer articulated what is at stake:

If we get the presidency, we must deliver.  And if we do, we will create the investment of huge numbers of Americans in a revitalized commitment to the importance of the public sector and the progressive vision for the future.

Prior to Creamer’s remarks, pollster Celinda Lake gave her analysis of poll-tested phraseology that will best sell socialized medicine to an already skeptical, pro-capitalism American public.  A PowerPoint presentation, created by Lake for a similar meeting, can be seen below:

CelindaLakeHealthCare09pollingpresentation –

Let’s be clear: the need for health care reform (assuming for a moment there actually is a need), is seen in battle terms by liberals in power.  They need it.  They salivate for it.  It’s something they must deliver for their base and their biggest campaign contributors.

Pro-free market conservatives are dealing with an issue bigger than simple health care reform.  They’re dealing with a liberal movement hell-bent on securing a victory and delivering the bacon to the interest groups that can return them to power next year.

In the very near future, Senator Reid is going to follow Speaker Pelosi’s lead and try to pass his Senate version of the liberal utopian health care plan – a full, unabashed socialist-style takeover of our nation’s health care system.

Senator Reid said health care reform would cover the uninsured, but we’ve already learned it will drive up our premiums – forcing more of us into a Big Brother system with inevitable rationing. He said health care reform would lower costs by itself, but he’s now considering massive tax increases on small business to pay its trillion dollar price tag. He’s promised more competition in health care, but only offers massive government, disguised as phony competition in the form of the taxpayer-subsidized “government option.”

Premium increases, tax increases, and socialized medicine. Make no mistake. Senator Reid is willing to destroy Nevada’s – and the nation’s economy, to pay the ransom demands of the radical left for his re-election.

Senator Reid may think he rules America from his gilded Capitol perch, but I believe that ‘We the People’ still have hope to defeat him, and I have a plan.

Since Senator Reid desperately needs the votes of moderate Senators to pass his plan, he has proposed allowing states to “opt out.” Unfortunately, he will probably make it virtually impossible to opt out, while providing a fig leaf of political cover to Senators on the fence.

Well I’m not fooled, so I’ve called his bluff. If Senator Reid is going to allow states to opt out, then as citizens, let’s take the power out of his hands, and “opt out” ourselves.

In Nevada, I am already leading this charge against Senator Reid. As was reported in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, I have launched the Nevada Health Care Choice Committee, which will put the Reid health care plan on the ballot for the people to vote next November. Once we know the language in the bill related to this option, we will draft our own initiative language and gear up for a signature drive.

But this need not be restricted to Nevada. If your state has an initiative process, you should be researching the same option. Imagine if all of America went back to its states’ rights roots and voted on whether to implement this plan. This could kill any moderate support for the plan, and would put the health care takeover squarely in front of the voters at the same time as each politician – including Senator Reid – runs for re-election.

Already there are movements afoot in other states to do something similar to my initiative. Arizona, in particular is proposing a constitutional amendment that would preserve the rights of citizens to choose their health plan. And similar efforts have started in swing states like Florida, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio. I encourage you to learn more about what is going on in your state and take your own actions – while knowing that I will continue to lead on your behalf.

It’s time to fight back using the last line of defense: a vote of the people. There is no guarantee this can stop Senator Reid and his left-wing re-election agenda, but whatever the outcome, it is worth the fight.

Just because you have a gun, you do not necessarily need to shoot it.  Just because you have a vote in Congress does not mean you need to grab power.

While both Parties have their internal battles, Republicans who are wondering why their numbers are waning need look no farther than the current health care debate for clues.  When Democrats roll out a Federal takeover of private health insurance, the Republican response should not be less of a government takeover, it should be a total federal government withdrawl from regulating private health insurance.  The point is simple, although lost on many.

When we think about insurance in our lives, from life, home, auto, professional liability and health, which one is the biggest source on consternation?  Guess what?  Health insurance is the only one in which the federal government has significantly intruded.  Even that is currently regulated at the State level.  However, the many Federal government restrictions that complicate the health insurance marketplace are the primary reason competition cannot thrive.

The biggest perversion of the healthcare marketplace dates back to the forties when only businesses and not individuals were allowed a tax  deduction for health insurance premiums.  While we are now dependent upon our employers to provide for this need, we would never expect them to provide for our home insurance.  Most of the additional federal intrusions that perverted the market came in the federal acts including ERISA, COBRA and HIPPA including the provision barring insurance purchasing across state lines.

So now that we have Democrats and Republicans tossing out a variety of federal solutions, it is only fair to acnowledge that the Republican plan under the architecture of Congressman Roy Blunt, at least leans more toward market-based solutions.   It offers some creative strategies but nevertheless leaves in tact most of the previous federal intrusions.  The Democrat proposal on the other hand, is a vile package of power grabs and payoffs, primarily to big labor and Senator Louisiana Landrieu.  Still the leftist American oligarchy of Obama, Reid and Pelosi continues to push this menacing bill forward against plummeting poll numbers for both the bill and themselves.  It seems passing any bill at all is more important than what kind of bill they pass.

As the debate rages on, it is clear that the American public does not trust the Congress, period.  The army of lobbyists and special interests negotiating various carve outs, mandates and other special privileges into the 2000 page nightmare has Americans justifiably in nearly full rebellion.   While both Parties argue over which bill ought to be on the table they are trying the patience of an American public that wants no bill at all.

There has been a lot of talk about Sen. Mary Landrieu’s new-found 100 million reasons to support Sen. Reid’s health care bill. As she channeled her inner-Hamlet about whether or not she would support her majority Leader on a procedural vote today, Sen. Landrieu won language that would pump at least another $100 million into Louisiana’s Medicaid system.

Many have framed this as Sen. Landrieu “selling” her vote, which makes me think that she’s a pretty cheap date. When fully implemented, the Reid health care plan–under the most optimistic assumptions–will cost at least $200 billion a year. An extra $100 million here or there is a rounding error. $100 million is what you get to vote for the Postal Reauthorization, not the most sweeping revamp of our nation’s health care delivery system. If I were cast in the role of one of the “undecideds” on this bill, which to Sen. Reid is numbers one, two and three on his priority list, I’d hold out for at least $1 billion. But then, I’m from Illinois.

$100 million also seems to be a rather small amount on which to risk her political career. Granted, she doesn’t have to face the voters for another 5 years, but she’ll likely face a very competitive race against almost any credible Republican. The state’s demographics have changed a lot in the last few years. Throw in her support of a new government health care plan and she’ll face a competitive race against any Republican with a pulse. The full benefits of the plan don’t kick in until 2014 (how’s that for the URGENT need to pass this yesterday), but by then we’ll have had four years of the higher taxes attached to the plan. It is very possible that 2014 could be the absolute worst year for supporters of the plan to run for reelection. There will likely be all manner of disruptions and unintended consequences that year as the full weight of the plan makes itself felt. Against these problems, voters can be reminded that they’ve been paying higher taxes, fees and premiums for years building up to the new system going “live.” The ads write themselves.

But, there is something else more fundamentally insane about the Landrieu deal. In essence, she will vote for a new government expansion into health care if the government will “fix” its existing involvement in health care. In Landrieu’s opinion, current government health care policy is harming her state. If government “fixes” the current harm it is inflicting, she will support increasing its ability to harm lots more people. Really?

The issue revolves around the existing public option plan, Medicaid. To most people, Medicaid is the health care system for the poor and low-income. A kind of health care welfare, if you will. But, it is a bit more complicated than that. The program is a kind of federal-state partnership, where the states have an almost unlimited draw on the federal government’s checkbook. Whatever a state decides to spend on its Medicaid program the Feds will at least match. For poorer states, like Louisiana, the Feds will kick in extra money.  So, the states have every incentive to expand their Medicaid programs as much as possible, since the Federal government will pick up at least half and generally more than half the bill. States have become very good at gaming this system.

Currently, the Federal government pays just over 67% of Louisiana’s Medicaid program. (In other words, for every $1 the STATE decides to spend, it only has to put up 33 cents.) After Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana vacuumed up federal assistance AND lost population. Because of this, it became relatively wealthier, measured on a per-capita basis, than it had been. So, starting in 2011, under current law, the feds will only pick up just over 63% of the costs of the state’s Medicaid program. (The state would have to spend 37 cents for every dollar IT decides to spend.) Landrieu’s $100 million buy-out will bridge this difference. Under her bargain, Medicaid’s system for reimbursing states will have a giant asterisk: the following formula applies, unless you are Louisiana.

The Landrieu bargain exposes the foundational flaw with government health care; it will be subject forever to the whims of politicians and the political process.  A one-size-fits-all federal policy can never meet every extenuating circumstance. Things–and people–will inevitably “fall through the cracks.” But, because it is the government, there are few avenues to seek redress.

It is possible that Louisiana has a legitimate case that its federal match shouldn’t decrease. But, the legitimacy of their case means nothing to a federal bureaucrat. Fortunately for Louisiana, one of its Senators has found herself in the sweet spot of being a critical vote on priority legislation. Hopefully, the rest of us will be so lucky when we have a problem with our own health care.

The Joint Committee on Taxation just released its analysis of the tax provisions in Reid’s Health Care Bill. It estimates a total of just over $370 billion in higher taxes. Its report is below:

Tax Provisions

Among the bigger items are a tax on medical devices ($19 billion), a tax on insurance providers ($60 billion.) Supporters of the legislation can pretend these taxes will be paid by the apparently-now-evil medical device companies and the already-known-as-evil insurance companies. Of course these taxes will simply be passed onto consumers, making medical devices and insurance a bit more expensive than it otherwise would have been.

Two other large tax hikes fall directly on citizens. The first would limit the amount of medical expenses people can deduct from their taxes, raising just over $15 billion. Far bigger is an increase in the Medicare payroll tax by over $50 billion.

Let’s not forget that taxes are already slatted to go up after next year by several hundred billion dollars. These plans may not be the best way to “jump start” the economy.