OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE

On July 7th of this year, President Obama made several recess appointments. One of those was Dr. Donald Berwick who will head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Recess appointments usually cause grumblings from the opposite political party. In this case Republicans. But also in this case the complaints came for some Democrats. Obama Uses Recess Appointment To Install Berwick As Head Of Medicare, Medicaid from Kaiser Health has a summary of comments from the media.

One of the Democrats is Max Baucus of Montana. Senator Baucus is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. As such Senator Baucus is the one who would schedule the hearings for Dr. Berwick's nomination. Senator Baucus had not scheduled any hearings as yet, so this is one nomination which cannot be blamed on the Republicans.

[Sen. Max Baucus] "said he was 'troubled' that Obama chose to install Berwick without a formal confirmation process. 'Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power and protects Montanans and all Americans by ensuring that crucial questions are asked of the nominee — and answered"

There is a very real possibility that Dr. Berwick's confirmation both in committee and before the full Senate, might not happen because of his Health Care Views.

Dr. Berwick does not believe waste in Medicine. But waste to him appears to mean something different than what most Americans call waste. It means Health Care rationing to Dr. Berwick.

Dr. Berwick has championed the interests of patients and consumers. At the same time, he has spoken of the need to ration health care and cap spending, has supported efforts to 'reduce the total supply of high-technology medical and surgical care' and has expressed great admiration for the British health care system. [Emphasis Mine]

In a interview with Katherine T. Adams, senior editor of Biotechnology Healthcare, published in June 2009, Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research, Dr. Berwick states ...

The decision is not whether or not we will ration care - the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. [Emphasis Mine]

That's what Dr. Berwick means by waste. He wants to measure the care of each patient, each procedure as to whether it is COST EFFECTIVE.

As mentioned earlier, Dr. Berwick "...has expressed great admiration for the British health care system". Here is a look at the present state of British Health Care. Axe falls on NHS services is an Investigative Report form the UK's "Sunday Telegraph".

Patients’ groups have described the measures as “astonishingly brutal”.

How brutal. Here is what the investigation found.

The Sunday Telegraph has uncovered widespread cuts planned across the NHS, many of which have already been agreed by senior health service officials. They include:

* Restrictions on some of the most basic and common operations, including hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery and orthodontic procedures.

* Plans to cut hundreds of thousands of pounds from budgets for the terminally ill, with dying cancer patients to be told to manage their own symptoms if their condition worsens at evenings or weekends.

* The closure of nursing homes for the elderly.

* A reduction in acute hospital beds, including those for the mentally ill, with targets to discourage GPs from sending patients to hospitals and reduce the number of people using accident and emergency departments.

* Tighter rationing of NHS funding for IVF treatment, and for surgery for obesity.

* Thousands of job losses at NHS hospitals, including 500 staff to go at a trust where cancer patients recently suffered delays in diagnosis and treatment because of staff shortages.

* Cost-cutting programmes in paediatric and maternity services, care of the elderly and services that provide respite breaks to long-term carers.

Many laughed when Sarah Palin talked about Death Panels. In light of the above, can anyone seriously say these cuts will not cut short the quality of care and possibly result in premature death for some of the patients covered under British Health Care? The same kind of Health Care System favored by Dr. Berwick? The same kind of Health Care System which is the result of ObamaCare? And now ObamaCare under Dr. Berwick?

MEET THE NEW (LARGER) IRS

Along with admitting that the National Health Care Insurance is a TAX (see my previous post, Nat'l Health INS A TAX) , the IRS is now complaining that there are not enough IRS employees and not enough allocated monies for the required work the IRS must now do to comply with ObamaCare. Lost in Taxation is from the on-line version of the "Wall Street Journal".

[W]ith ObamaCare, the agency is now responsible for "the most extensive social benefit program the IRS has been asked to implement in recent history." And without "sufficient funding" it won't be able to discharge these new duties.

Nina Olson is the IRS National Taxpayer Advocate.

Ms. Olson also exposed a damaging provision that she estimates will hit some 30 million sole proprietorships and subchapter S corporations, two million farms and one million charities and other tax-exempt organizations. Prior to ObamaCare, businesses only had to tell the IRS the value of services they purchase. But starting in 2013 they will also have to report the value of goods they buy from a single vendor that total more than $600 annually—including office supplies and the like.

.Not only will the size of the IRS and its Budget increase, the burdens placed on these 33 million business, farms and charities will be a job killer.

Ms. Olson says that the tracking costs for small businesses will be "disproportionate as compared with any resulting improvement in tax compliance."

With fewer dollars of profit due to additional expenses of compliance, fewer jobs will be created or saved.

If the unintended consequences of National Health Care are not already enough, here is another unintended consequence.

Meanwhile, the IRS will be inundated with useless information, because without a huge upgrade its information systems won't be able to manage and track the nanodetails.

Summary, National Health Care Insurance is a TAX. A TAX on everyone (not just the rich), which will cost more and kill jobs (except at the IRS).

NAT'L HEALTH INS A TAX!

Another campaign promise President Obama has broken. Details in this "New York Times" article Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax. The reason the Obama Justice Department has decided to admit National Health Care is a Tax is simple. Twenty states have challenged the right of the Government to require National Health Insurance under the "Commerce Clause" of the Constitution, and they were going to loose. But calling it a Tax (which we all knew it was all along) makes for a stronger argument.

[I]n court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

So much for keeping Campaign promises. Here is the crux of the matter.

Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.

Now this presents a real problem for the Democrats and especially for President Obama. Remember this statement by President Obama?

“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”

When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”

Congress took a large step with the language of the Health Care Bill to insure we would be convinced that this was not a tax. Look at the following language in the provisions of the legislation.

Congress anticipated a constitutional challenge to the individual mandate. Accordingly, the law includes 10 detailed findings meant to show that the mandate regulates commercial activity important to the nation’s economy.

Congress discounted the possibility and knew the public would not like a tax on anyone except the rich - those making over $250,000.00 per year. Now that the Obama Administration through the Justice Department have decided to defend National Health Care as a TAX (something Obama did not want to do), we all have confirmed what we knew in our hearts. National Health Care is a Tax on everyone, just like Cap and Trade will be if passed.

The Democrats, including President Obama, have been dishonest about what National Health Insurance is.

Jack M. Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School who supports the new law, said, “The tax argument is the strongest argument for upholding” the individual-coverage requirement.

Mr. Obama "has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill,” Mr. Balkin said last month at a meeting of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization. “This bill is a tax." [Emphasis Mine]

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck...

NON-TRANSPARENT DEMOCRAT SENATE

This is the Senate of Harry Reid.

PRESS RELEASES

Completely Reckless, Completely Irresponsible
from the Office of Senator Mitch McConnell

Thursday, December 17, 2009

‘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. That’s right. The final bill we’ll vote on isn’t even the one we’ve had on the floor. It’s the deal Democrat leaders have been trying to work out in private’

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Thursday regarding the importance of getting it right on health care reform:

“Senators on both sides acknowledge that the health care bill we’re considering is among the most significant pieces of legislation any of us will ever consider.

“So it stands to reason that we’d devote significant time and attention to it.

“Indeed, some would argue that we should spend more time and attention on this bill than most — if not every — previous bill we’ve considered.

“The Majority disagrees.

“Why? Because this bill has become a political nightmare for them.

“They know Americans overwhelmingly oppose it, so they want to get it over with.

“Americans are already outraged at the fact that Democrat leaders took their eyes off the ball. Rushing the process on a partisan line makes the situation even worse.

“Americans were told the purpose of reform was to reduce the cost of health care.

“Instead, Democrat leaders produced a $2.5 trillion, 2,074-page monstrosity that vastly expands government, raises taxes, raises premiums, and wrecks Medicare.

“And they want to rush this bill through by Christmas — one of the most significant, far-reaching pieces of legislation in U.S. history. They want to rush it.

“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.

“That’s right. The final bill we’ll vote on isn’t even the one we’ve had on the floor. It’s the deal Democrat leaders have been trying to work out in private.

“That’s what they intend to bring to the floor and force a vote on before Christmas.

“So this entire process is essentially a charade.

“But let’s just compare the process so far with previous legislation for some perspective. Here’s a snapshot of what we’ve done and where we stand:

• The Majority Leader intends to bring this debate to a close as early as this weekend — four days from now, on this $2.5 trillion dollar mistake

• No American who hasn’t been invited into the Majority Leader’s conference room knows what will be in that bill

• This bill has been the pending business of the Senate since the last week of November — less than four weeks ago.

• We started the amendment process two weeks ago.

• We’ve had 21 amendments and motions — less than two a day.

“Now let’s look at how the Senate has dealt with previous legislation.

“No Child Left Behind (2001):

• 21 session days or 7 weeks.

• Roll Call votes: 44

• Number of Amendments offered: 157

“9/11 Commission/Homeland Security Act (2002):

• 19 session days over 7 weeks.

• Roll Call votes: 20

• Number of Amendments offered: 30

“Energy Bill (2002):

• 21 session days over 8 weeks

• Number of Roll Call votes: 36

• Number of Amendments offered: 158

“This isn’t an energy bill. This is an attempt by a majority to take over one sixth of the U.S. economy — to vastly expand the reach and the role of government into the health care decisions of every single American — and they want to be done after one substantive amendment. This is absolutely inexcusable.

“I think Senator Snowe put it best on Tuesday:

‘Given the enormity and complexity,’ she said, ‘I don’t see anything magical about the Christmas deadline if this bill is going to become law in 2014.’

“And I think Senator Snowe’s comments on a lack of bipartisanship at the outset of this debate are also right on point.

“Here’s what she said in late November:

‘I am truly disappointed we are commencing our historic debate on one of the most significant and pressing domestic issues of our time with a process that has forestalled our ability to arrive at broader agreement on some of the most crucial elements of health care reform. The bottom line is, the most consequential health care legislation in the history of our country and the reordering of $33 trillion in health care spending over the coming decade shouldn’t be determined by one vote-margin strategies – surely we can and must do better.’

“The only conceivable justification for rushing this bill is the overwhelming opposition of the American people. Democrats know that the longer Americans see this bill the less they like it. Here’s the latest from Pew. It came out just yesterday.

“A majority (58 percent) of those who have heard a lot about the bills oppose them while only 32 percent favor them.”

“There is no justification for this blind rush — except a political one, and that’s not good enough for the American people.

“And there’s no justification for forcing the Senate to vote on a bill none of us has seen.

“Americans already oppose this bill. The process is just as bad.

“It’s completely reckless, completely irresponsible.”

OBAMACARE/KENNEDY CARE HR3200

By whatever title, the current Health Care Bill has some really frightening sections from the standpoint of Privacy. Remember how up in arms the Liberal Dems where about the NSA wiretapping?

But in the present Public Option Health Care Bill there is no outcry, but the requirements for Privacy invasion are much greater. Instead of someone who MIGHT be accessing you library card info, reading your email, listening to your cell phone etc, this bill contains MUST do accessing and storing Income Tax Records, Social Security Information, Health Information Records (Doctor, Clinic, Hospital and all other Medical Information) in some bureau of the Federal Government headed by the Health Choices Commissioner. This is a REQUIREMENT. And the information will be shared with State and Local Governments. How safe is your VERY PRIVATE INFORMATION when every politician, Government Worker and who knows who else has this information at their computer?

Democratic Health Care Bill Divulges IRS Tax Data is from CBS News and contains these paragraphs.

Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."

And this.

Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify "affordability credits."

Another section says this.

Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.

This Legislation is 1000+ pages what else is hidden therein?
Why no outcry about Privacy Invasion from the Liberal Dems? Ask Them, Please. Go to Town Hall meetings and ask questions.

GOVERNMENT PAID HEALTH INSURANCE - THE TRUTH

The Liberals (mostly Democrats) claim that we need a Government Paid Health Care Plan (commonly called Single-Payer or Public Option) because there are about 46 million Americans who do not have Health Insurance. Of that number, about 13 million are illegal aliens, who should not be eligible for Government Paid health insurance in the 1st place. There are also a number of uninsured who choose not to be covered, even though many of them could afford Health Insurance. These are mostly young adults who want to maximize their take home pay for whatever reason. The reality is that the number of people without Health Insurance is quite a lot smaller than 46 million.

It needs to be noted that because 46 Million in America do not have Health Insurance DOES NOT mean they don't have Health Care. All of them will receive treatment at any Hospital Emergency Room. They must be treated by law. Most of them also receive services at Clinics and Doctors Offices.

The Liberals would like you to believe that a Government Paid Health Insurance Plan would not drive the Private Insurance companies out of business. They claim that it would make the Private Insurers more competitive. The reality is that Private Insurance Companies cannot compete with a Government Plan, because the Government does not have to show a profit. In fact the Government can operate at a loss and once the Government Paid Health Insurance Plan goes into effect, the companies who furnish Health Insurance for their employees as a fringe benefit will not have any reason to continue to offer Health Insurance to their Employees. Some competition.

What is the Liberal Health Insurance agenda? Here are their own words.
Kathleen Sebelius, (Obama's Health and Human Services Secretary) in 2007

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI)

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL 9th)

The Liberals want to create a system like the one in place in Canada. The Canadian Plan does not improve the quality of Health Care. In fact Health Care is rationed, denied and delayed under the Canadian plan. We do not need this type of Change. It is a step backward.

There are some things we do need to improve our Health Care in the US. Tort Reform is one of the best places to start.