This week we get the news that some health insurers have decided to stop offering child-only plans due to cost and Obamacare regulation compliance issues.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air explains:

Most of us outside of the White House understood that by forcing insurers to take on more risk while pressuring them to keep prices down, we would either see insurers stop offering certain policies or go out of business altogether.  ObamaCare advocates kept insisting that we had to help the children by proceeding apace with their government takeover of the industry.  The result?  Suffer the children:

Some of the country’s most prominent health insurance companies have decided to stop offering new child-only plans, rather than comply with rules in the new health-care law that will require such plans to start accepting children with preexisting medical conditions after Sept. 23.

The companies will continue to cover children who already have child-only policies. They will also accept children with preexisting conditions in new family policies.

Critics blast the insurers for their “immoral” decision, but they had little choice.  The federal government mandate requires them to accept any child at any time, regardless of any pre-existing condition, but doesn’t yet require parents of healthy children to buy policies for them.

There is a commercial out there that starts “this is the biggest no brainer since…” and I think that’s an appropriate phrase to use here.  Anyone that claimed this would not happen, or couldn’t have been foreseen, either had their head buried in the sand or have chosen to intentionally mislead others.

The very concept of insurance and risk pools has been ignored in the abomination law known as Obamacare.  Unless your goal is to drive insurance companies out of business (can you say single payer system?), it is not reasonable to tell insurance companies to increase coverage (no pre-existing conditions, no life time limits, etc.), but then tell them they can’t increase costs.

As opposed to the individual mandate as many Americans are, the reality is that the ONLY way that requirements such as no lifetime coverage limits and no pre-existing conditions can possibly work is to require every one in America to purchase coverage.  However, as the Obamacare law was designed to win elections in the November 2010 elections and get Obama re-elected in 2012, Pelosi, Reid and company chose to implement ‘benefits’ just before the mid-term elections, but wait until after the 2012 Presidential election to implement the unpopular aspects like the individual mandate.

Nancy Pelosi famously said that we have to pass the bill to know what’s in it, but the fact is that even now that it’s passed, most Congressmen and American citizens have not read the bill, and don’t know what’s in it.  More importantly, they still don’t understand the negative ramifications of the bill.

Foolishly, most Americans assume that Congressmen actually READ the bills they are voting on and no what’s in it BEFORE they vote on it.  Silly us.

Politico recently reported that NO Democratic incumbents are using health care as one of the platforms they are running on for reelection.  What is supposed to be the crowing achievement of the Democratic party.  A decades old goal that has finally been reached.  The “this one’s for Teddy” accomplishment that will bring America in line with the rest of the civilized world.  Yet, not ONE single Democrat is running on the fact that they passed Obamacare.

The question of why, has to be asked.  Is it because they still haven’t read the bill and don’t want to be caught off guard by questions from voters who actually have read the bill?  Is it because they finally read the bill and realize that it contains a LOT of bad stuff that will raise costs and not keep their promise of “if you like your health care plan you can keep it”?  Is it because premiums are already going up for individuals and small businesses, due to the provisions of the law that go into effect next month?

Maybe it’s because roughly 2/3 of Americans aren’t in favor of the law.  Possibly, it’s because while Democrats took political cover by falsely claiming it would reduce the deficit, but now enough real data (including the docfix that they delayed to get a falsely positive CBO score) has come out to prove that it is far from a deficit reducing law.

Regardless of the reason, Democrats are running away from Obamacare as fast as they can as they campaign for reelection.  That should tell you something.

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey explains how the administrations attempt to front load the ‘good’ stuff in the bill to garner support, has actually already begun to backfire:

After the polls showed that the newly-passed ObamaCare bill remained deeply unpopular with voters, the Obama administration reshuffled the rollout in order to convince Americans what a great deal they would get.  By “front-loading” the most popular provisions to make them effective immediately, the White House hoped that the momentum would shift to support for the one legislative achievement of Barack Obama’s turn — or at least neutralize its negative influence.  Instead, ObamaCare remains as unpopular as ever, and the bill will come due just before the midterms:

Health insurers say they plan to raise premiums for some Americans as a direct result of the health overhaul in coming weeks, complicating Democrats’ efforts to trumpet their signature achievement before the midterm elections.

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

These and other insurers say Congress’s landmark refashioning of U.S. health coverage, which passed in March after a brutal fight, is causing them to pass on more costs to consumers than Democrats predicted.

Even though the bill has passed, which according to Madam Pelosi should allow us to know what’s in it, a dirty secret that most still don’t understand is the incredible control that HHS will have of their health care.  Almost all aspects of insurance, and as a result insurance costs and covered (or not covered) treatments, will be dictated by HHS regulations.  HHS will dictate what insurance plans must contain.  HHS  will dictate how much an insurance company can charge.  HHS will determine whether or not you can keep the plan that you have and like, and CBO analysis shows that the vast majority of Americans will NOT be able to keep the plan they have, even if they like it — contrary to what President Obama promised.

If Democrats believed so strongly in Obamacare that they had no qualms about using parliamentary tricks and dirty politics to get it passed into law, why are they hiding from it now that they are trying to get re-elected?

The American Spectator reports that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was given the analysis by the Medicare actuary, which showed that Obamacare would have many negative side effects.  Sebelius refused to review, and as a result publicize, the report, claiming she didn’t want to influence the vote.  By not wanting to influence the vote, she meant she didn’t want to do anything to hurt the chances of Obamacare passing, even if that meant burying facts that Congress and the public should have had BEFORE the final votes were taken.

The economic report released last week by Health and Human Services, which indicated that President Barack Obama’s health care “reform” law would actually increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on consumers, had been submitted to the office of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the Congressional votes on the bill, according to career HHS sources, who added that Sebelius’s staff refused to review the document before the vote was taken.

Grace-Marie Turner of National Review Online summarizes the report that Sebelius buried until after the Obamacare vote:

But looking at the details of Foster’s report shows the many, many danger signs for Obamacare and how many of its promises will be broken:

1. People losing coverage: About 14 million people will lose their employer coverage by 2019, as smaller employers terminate their plans and workers who currently have employer coverage enroll in Medicaid. Half of all seniors on Medicare Advantage could lose their coverage and the extra benefits the plans offer.

2. Huge fines for companies: Businesses will pay $87 billion in penalties in the first five years after the fines trigger in 2014, partly because they can’t afford to offer expensive, government-mandated coverage and partly because some of their employees will apply for taxpayer-subsidized insurance.

3. Higher costs for consumers: Tens of billions of dollars in new fees and excise taxes will be “passed through to health consumers in the form of higher drug and devices prices and higher premiums,” according to Foster. A separate report shows small businesses will be hit hardest.

4. A program created to fail: The new “CLASS Act” long-term-care insurance program will face “a significant risk of failure,” according to Foster. Indeed, he finds, “there is a very serious risk that the problem of adverse selection will make the CLASS program unsustainable.”

5. Spending increases: Under the new law, national health spending will increase by $311 billion over the coming decade. And instead of bending the federal spending curve down, it will move it upward “by a net total of $251 billion” over the next decade.

6. “Free-riders”: An estimated 23 million people will remain uninsured in 2019, roughly 5 million of whom would be undocumented aliens; the remainder would be the 18 million who decline to get coverage and who will pay the penalty.

7. Spending reductions are fiction: Estimated reductions in the growth rate of health spending “may not be fully achievable” because “Medicare productivity adjustments could become unsustainable even within the next ten years, and over time the reductions in the scope of employer-sponsored health insurance could also become an issue.”

8. You can’t keep your doctor: Fifteen percent of all hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers treating Medicare patients could be operating at a loss by 2019, which will “possibly jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries.” Doctors are threatening to drop out of Medicare because cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates mean they can’t even cover their costs.

9. Coverage but no care: A significant portion of those newly eligible for Medicaid will have trouble finding physicians who will see them, and the increased demand for Medicaid services could be difficult to meet.

This is an objective report by administration actuaries that shows this sweeping legislation has serious, serious problems.

And there’s more: Joint Economic Committee Republicans explain in a new report the impact of a rarely mentioned $14.3 billion per year tax on health insurance, effective in 2014. They find this tax will be mostly passed through to consumers in the form of higher premiums for private coverage. It will cost the typical family of four with job-based coverage an additional $1,000 a year in higher premiums and will fall largely, and inequitably, on small businesses and their employees.

Whether you are for or against Obamacare and a move towards nationalized health care, it is hard to defend burying a report by the Medicare’s office of the actuary that detailed the negative impacts that passing Obamacare would cause.  Anyone that watched the votes on C-SPAN or simply watched President Obama’s sales pitches leading up to the votes would know that the picture that Democrats painted was far different than what the Medicare actuary and the CBO stated.   Obama and Congressional Demorats painted a picture of reduced costs, increased coverage, deficit reduction and so much more.

There is also a report that the White House Legislative Affairs office received a copy of the report prior to the Congressional vote.  Ed Morrissey of Hot Air discusses this:

If the Obama administration had this information before the vote — and it should be noted that this comes from a single, anonymous source — then it deliberately misled Congress on the cost estimates.  That may not be a crime, but it’s highly unethical at the least, and makes Barack Obama’s claims to operate with transparency absolutely laughable, if true.  As the Prowler’s source points out, the entire reason CMS provided an analysis was to ensure that everyone knew the ramifications of passing this legislation.  Deliberately withholding it would have stripped Congress of that transparency, if that’s indeed what happened.

The CBO, once you dug into the numbers, clearly showed that Obamacare would not reduce the deficit, but instead massively increase it.  The CBO report stated that premiums would rise faster under Obamacare than if no legislation was passed.  The HHS report, once  Sebelius stopped burying it, showed the same, an increase in costs, and millions losing their coverage or being unable to find physicians willing to treat them.

Are the lies and Chicago style politics ‘really’ the change that American’s voted for in November of 2008?

On Thursday Van Irion, a Congressional candidate and Constitutional lawyer, filed a lawsuit against Obamacare following the Tennessee Attorney General’s refusal to do so:

Third District Congressional candidate Van Irion said in just three days, more than 500 individuals and companies from 30 states have joined his federal lawsuit “against Obamacare.”

On Thursday, the attorney filed a constitutional challenge to the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” in Chattanooga Federal Court. He filed suit two days after Tennessee Attorney General Robert Cooper announced that his office would not be filing suit on behalf of Tennessee citizens

In the days since filing the lawsuit, Irion says that he has had over 600 people request to join the suit:

“We’ve been stunned at the response,” Irion said. “We immediately started getting requests to join the lawsuit from people and companies all across the US. We then decided to represent any US citizens and companies. The count is now 600 and we expect to reach 1000 plaintiffs within a week.”

Once Irion has collected enough names of people and companies wishing to join this lawsuit, he will file a motion to join all of those individuals to his lawsuit and expects that the case will be certified a class action at that point.

Click the following link to get a copy of Irion’s complaint Shreeve v Obama et al or visit Van Irion’s site for more information or to sign up to join the class action suit.

To get an idea of who Irion is, here’s an interview where he talks about his beliefs about the constitution and what he would do if he was elected and sent to Washington:

The Republicans found a provision that guaranteed Pell grants into the future without providing funding for them, leaving that to a future Congress.  As this provision does not reduce spending, it was not eligible to be in the reconciliation bill.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air touches on two points related to sending the bill back to the house:

If that’s all that gets struck from the bill, the only effect will be to lengthen the debate on health care.  Obviously, that’s exactly what the Republicans want.  With 62% of voters wanting the GOP to keep fighting against ObamaCare, their leadership has no reason to let up.

The big surprise here is that House leadership allowed themselves to screw up on minor points.  The process of reconciliation isn’t that arcane, and they certainly had the time to double-check their work.  They’ve been working on this strategy since Scott Brown won his election in mid-January.  To have the bill boomerang back because of Pell grants in a health-care bill is an embarrassment.

While this is mostly a delaying tactic by the Republicans, there is some significance to the delaying tactics.

First, a CBS poll released yesterday, which was conducted in the two days leading up to the House health bill vote, showed that 62% of American, including 41% of Democrats, wanted the GOP to continue to fight against Obamacare.  In addition, that survey showed 57%/18% that people believed that regardless of the Democrat’s claims of a great CBO score, that the bill would in fact increase the deficit.

Second, House and Senate Democrats had not only been working on the Reconciliation strategy since the Brown victory, but had spent weeks leading up to the vote working directly with Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin to insure that errors like this were not contained in the bill.  So, not only is it an embarrassment that these small errors existed, but also highlights the fact that the Democrats piggy backed a takeover of the student loan program onto Obamacare.

Finally, in addition to the minor victory of sending the bill back to the house for a new vote, and as a result keeping the ‘process’ in the news cycle, yesterday’s GOP tactics served another purpose.  The Republicans put forth close to three dozen amendments.  While they had no real hope that any would pass, many of the amendments were put forth, because voting against them will look bad for vulnerable Democratic Senators in November.  For instance, voting against an amendment that would forbid raiding Medicare to pay for the Obamacare bill.

I am not able to list all the states that joined the Florida suit or provide a link to the AP report.

Their plan was to argue that the following statement by Steny Hoyer indicated that the Reconciliation bill violated the Congressional Budget Act Of 1974, which states that any bill that contains “recommendations with respect to” Social Security, will be out of order and therefor ineligible for budget reconciliation.

“The Congressional Budget Office estimate of the health care legislation shows an increase in Social Security revenues… CBO projects that the resulting increase in wages will generate $29 billion in additional FICA contributions to the Social Security Trust Fund.” (“Health Care Reform Update,”

Late Monday, Alan Frumin, the Senate Parliamentarian ruled in favor of the Democrats when the Republicans made the argument that delaying the Cadillac tax would impact Social Security, which would constitute “recommendations with respect to” Social Security, there by making the House bill ineligible for reconciliation.

Senate Republicans Monday afternoon argued to Frumin that a provision of the reconciliation package approved by the House violated Section 310g of the Budget Act. Had Frumin ruled in the Republicans’ favor, the bill would have been stripped of its reconciliation status.

Frumin heard arguments from Democratic and GOP Senate staff, and he ultimately ruled in favor of the Democrats. The Republicans argued that a provision dealing with the excise tax on “Cadillac” insurance plans impacted Social Security. The Budget Act does not permit reconciliation legislation to affect Social Security.

Most considered this a long shot, as it was a weak and indirect effect on Social Security, so therefore the ruling isn’t too surprising. The reason the GOP wanted this one is that it would make the entire bill out of order, where most other points of order that the GOP wins would only require that the specific clause or language (that is ruled out of order) be removed from the reconciliation bill.

It’s important to note several things.

First, even if the reconciliation bill was ruled out of order, the Senate bill passed yesterday will still become law when President Obama signs it tomorrow morning.

Second, any changes that are made to the House reconciliation bill, which the Senate is set to consider, would require the bill to be sent back to the House for another vote.  The bill that the Senate ultimately votes on must be the exact language that the House passed.  So, whether a change comes from a ruling by the Senate Parliamentarian, a change made by Senate Democrats, or an amendment that is passed (whether offered by Democrats or Republicans), it will require the bill to go back to the House for another vote.

Third, it is also possible that this could happen multiple times, which is the “ping ponging” that reporters and Congressmen sometimes refer to in articles or interviews.

President Obama set the tone for both Houses of Congress, when leading up to the passage of the first stimulus bill, his response to Republican leadership concerns about not being involved in drafting the stimulus bill was simply to state that he didn’t have to involve them, because as he said “I won”.

Dick Morris has been warning Democrats for a while that there will be a very steep price for defying the will of the American public.  He now says they will pay a heavy price in November for that defiance:

The Democratic Party’s decision to deform our health care system in the name of reforming it amounts to a suicide pact. With America decrying the legislation by 60-40 margins, the legislators lined up and dutifully drank the Kool-Aid.

…

The anger of the voters at this total disregard of public opinion will power Republican candidates throughout the nation and will impel one of the greatest reversals of Congressional alignment in history.

But the aftershock of this political earthquake is yet to come. It will be upon us in the fall when Congress must decide whether to proceed with the Medicare cuts (particularly to cut in doctors’ reimbursement rates) or to postpone or cancel them and add the cost to the federal deficit.

…

This vote transforms the political landscape in a way that we have not seen in our lifetimes and the results will be cataclysmic for the Democratic Party

The next seven months will be interesting.  Starting today, the Democrats will begin selling the benefits of Obamacare in an attempt to mitigate the damage in the mid-term elections come November.   Only time will tell how successful they will be with their sales job.

As to paying for their defiance, one has to now wonder about the Stupak bloc.  They claimed that their principles could not be compromised.  Bart Stupak said that if the Senate language, which provides for the public funding of abortion, was not amended then Stupak and his group could not and would not vote for it.  They did.

The White House wrote them a “here’s some cover for the mid-term elections” Executive Order, but they know, and the American public will soon know, that the Executive Order does nothing to prevent the public funding of abortion that Stupak has been decrying for months.

Not too many people thought the President could get this many Congressmen to fall on their swords for him.  If Dick Morris is right, the dismantling of the Democratic majority might be Obama’s greatest accomplishment.

The most likely challenge to succeed, and the one most states are focusing on, is the individual mandate.  This would result in an unprecedented extension of federal powers, where by the federal government can force US Citizens to purchase a product (in this case health insurance) or be penalized or taxed if they don’t.

The Washington Post laid out the case (or lack there of) of several court challenges that the health care bills could face.  Here is the WaPo analysis of the merits of the two most likely supreme court challenges:

The individual mandate.

Can Congress really require that every person purchase health insurance from a private company or face a penalty? The answer lies in the commerce clause of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power “to regulate commerce . . . among the several states.” Historically, insurance contracts were not considered commerce, which referred to trade and carriage of merchandise. That’s why insurance has traditionally been regulated by states. But the Supreme Court has long allowed Congress to regulate and prohibit all sorts of “economic” activities that are not, strictly speaking, commerce. The key is that those activities substantially affect interstate commerce, and that’s how the court would probably view the regulation of health insurance.

But the individual mandate extends the commerce clause’s power beyond economic activity, to economic inactivity. That is unprecedented. While Congress has used its taxing power to fund Social Security and Medicare, never before has it used its commerce power to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private company. Regulating the auto industry or paying “cash for clunkers” is one thing; making everyone buy a Chevy is quite another. Even during World War II, the federal government did not mandate that individual citizens purchase war bonds.

If you choose to drive a car, then maybe you can be made to buy insurance against the possibility of inflicting harm on others. But making you buy insurance merely because you are alive is a claim of power from which many Americans instinctively shrink. Senate Republicans made this objection, and it was defeated on a party-line vote, but it will return.

The Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, Gator Aid and other deals.

Some states are threatening lawsuits to block the special deals brokered by individual senators in exchange for their votes. Unless the reconciliation bill passes the Senate, such deals could remain in place. Article I of the Constitution allows Congress to tax and spend to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” Normally, this is no barrier to legislation benefiting a particular state or city. Congress can always argue that, say, an Air Force base in Nebraska benefits the United States as a whole. But the deals in the Senate bill are different. It is really hard to identify a benefit to all the states from exempting one state from an increase in Medicare costs or allowing only the citizens of Florida to get Medicare Advantage.

While it seems that there is probably wiggle room in regards to the special deals for Nebraska and other states, it is much harder to defend the individual mandate.   The Democrats will claim that the commerce clause will come into play, and therefore gives the federal government the right to regulate it and therefore require citizens to purchase insurance just for the right of living and breathing.  What’s next?  A requirement to by only GM cars?

One ironic side note.  The commerce clause is used to regulate interstate commerce, but the Democrats refused to even consider the interstate sale of insurance, or allowing insurance to be sold across party lines.

In essence, it seems that reconciliation cannot be used to impact social security in any way. However, in the reconciliation bill the House Democrats state that they will raise additional revenues for social security.

Presumably, this was added as one of the many ‘marketing’ clauses in the bill, which allows Democrats to tout the benefits as they campaign leading up to the mid-term elections in November.

Ace of Ace of Spades explains this last ditch effort:

So the GOP’s floating of this objection is an 11th hour attempt to make House Democrats realize reconciliation won’t happen, so as to make them vote “No.”

Here’s the argument:

DON STEWART, McCONNELL SPOKESMAN: “Republicans have been trying to set up a meeting with Senate Democrats since yesterday to discuss this fatal point of order but have been met with nothing but silence. We suspect Democrats are slow walking us so as to have the House vote first. Since Senate Democrats refuse to meet with us and the arliamentarian, we’ve informed our colleagues in the House that we believe the bill they’re now considering violates the clear language of Section 310g of the Congressional Budget Act, and the entire reconciliation bill is subject to a point of order and rejection in the Senate should it pass the House.”

BACKGROUND

DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP RELEASE: “The Congressional Budget Office estimate of the health care legislation shows an increase in Social Security revenues… CBO projects that the resulting increase in wages will generate $29 billion in additional FICA contributions to the Social Security Trust Fund.” (“Health Care Reform Update,” Office of Rep. Steny Hoyer, 3/21/10)

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT: “LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE SOCIAL

SECURITY ACT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution reported pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget agreed to under section 301 or 304, or a joint resolution pursuant to section 258C of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, or any amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that contains recommendations with respect to the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program established under title II of the Social Security Act.” (Congressional Budget Act Of 1974, Sec. 310g, P. 31)

So, I think, the attempt to divert SS payments into this bill is illegal (and of course it’s a gimmick in the first place to get a better CBO number, once again double-counting a revenue source) and so the reconciliation will fail.

ALLAHPUNDIT of Hot Air is one of those that remains skeptical:

If this was something other than a hail mary, wouldn’t the GOP have floated it yesterday or the day before, when waverers hadn’t yet tied their own hands by publicly committing to yes? It feels desperate, even if there’s something to it, and no one wants to run away from an enemy who they know is desperate. Which is another way of saying don’t count on any Stupakers getting cold feet over this.

Former Senator Rick Santorum is making a case that Harry Reid not only knows that the entire reconciliation bill could get tossed, but that it may very well be Reid’s plan.

Mitch McConnell and other Republican leaders in the Senate have been trying to get Reid to have the Parliamentarian make a ruling on the social security issue.  Reid has refused to get such a ruling:

“Now here’s the interesting thing,” Santorum said. “Mitch McConnell and the Republican leadership have been pleading with [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid to meet with the parliamentarian to get a ruling on this before the House votes. Senate Democrats have refused to meet with the parliamentarian to get a resolution on this issue. So as a result, there’s still the open question.”

Asked if Senate Democrats were sandbagging House Democrats, Santorum said: “My old friend Dick Armey used to say, when he was the Republican [majority] leader and he would talk about the Democrats, he said, ‘The Democrats are the opposition, the Senate is the enemy.’ In this case, the Senate truly is sandbagging House Democrats who are voting for this thinking it’s going to be fixed, and it’s not going to be fixed.

Santorum said the errant attempt at using reconciliation is being done at the behest of the president and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

So, it would seem that Reid may very well know that there is a substantial chance that the entire reconciliation bill could be tossed due to the social security issue, which would leave health care where he wanted it all along — the Senate health care being the law of the land, full of all the kick backs and special deals.

Stupak claims that this executive order will address all concerns about public funds being used to pay for abortion, but Stupak did not address the mandate that all men and women buying insurance from exchange-qualified health care plans will be required to pay $1 a month (or more) that will go into a pool to pay for abortions within that plan.

Further, that Executive Order can be rescinded by President Obama or a future President, and more importantly does not trump legislation enacted by Congress.  Therefore, the Executive Order does nothing except give Stupak cover in the upcoming mid-term elections.

The following is a draft of Obama’s Executive Order posted on Major Garrett’s Foxnews blog:

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- – - – - – -

ENSURING ENFORCEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ABORTION RESTRICTIONS IN THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (approved March ¬¬__, 2010), I hereby order as follows:

Section 1. Policy.

Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“the Act”), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment. The purpose of this Executive Order is to establish a comprehensive, government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors—Federal officials, state officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers—are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, Pub. L. No. 111-8, §508(d)(1) (2009)) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

Numerous executive agencies have a role in ensuring that these restrictions are enforced, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

Section 2. Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges. The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014. The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires state health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.

I hereby direct the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act’s segregation requirements, established in Section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance. The guidelines shall also offer technical information that states should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges. In developing these model guidelines, the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office. Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act’s segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to state health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.

Section 3. Community Health Center Program.

The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program. Existing law prohibits these centers from using federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language. Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions. I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law. Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules.

Section 4. General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this Executive Order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law or presidential directive to an agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This Executive Order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This Executive Order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

First, it’s important to note that while this is a slim sliver of hope, Foxnews and many other agencies believe that Pelosi has 216, if not more.  They believe that Pelosi continues to try and win yes votes only to pad the numbers so that no Democrats can be pointed to as the ‘deciding vote’ during the upcoming mid-term elections.

That said, less than an hour ago, The Hill reported that Pelosi is still short of 216 and that Stupak’s office is still calling him a firm no:

If every member votes, Democratic leaders can only afford 37 defections. According to The Hill’s whip list, there are 39 Democrats planning to vote no.

Furthermore, The Hill also has seven Democrats in the undecided/unclear column: Reps Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Kathy Dahlkemper (Pa.), Paul Kanjorski (Pa.), Alan Mollohan (W.Va.), Mike Quigley (Ill.), Bobby Rush (Ill.) and Loretta Sanchez (Calif.).

There have been various reports on Sunday that Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and other anti-abortion lawmakers have agreed to an abortion deal involving an executive order from the Obama administration. However, Stupak’s office are strongly denying those reports.

AllahPundit of Hot Air says that Stupak may decide the fate of Obamacare:

I thought for sure that Lincoln Davis and John Tanner voting no meant that Pelosi had made it and was now releasing vulnerable Dems, but it ain’t so.

If the Stupak bloc is still back in the driver’s seat, the question remains:  will Stupak stand by his word or will he simply look for some political cover to help him in November?

The Executive Order will do nothing to stop the mandate that every man and women buying exchange-qualified insurance plans will have to pay $1+ a month into a trust to pay for abortions.  This is the very language in the Senate bill that Stupak said he could not vote for, but now the rumblings are he will vote for it as long as Obama gives him a meaningless Executive Order for him to wave in the air in November and say, “see, I got something from Obama, re-elect me.”

UPDATE:

Ok, this doesn’t look promising.  AllahPundit is reporting that Stupak has scheduled a press conference for 4:00 PM EDT, which almost certainly means he is announcing his yes vote.

UPDATE 2:

While we need to wait about another five minutes for the Stupak Press conference, the Hill is reporting that a deal has been reached with the White House and the remaining members of the Stupak bloc will flip to yes:

“Eight or nine” Democrats, including Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), will announce the deal at a 4 p.m. press conference, according to an anti-abortion Democrat.

“We’ve changed [our votes],” said Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio).

Driehaus said he’s seen the executive order and can now vote for the healthcare bill.  He said Stupak has signed off, as well.

Not only have all the legal/legislative experts that I have seen claimed that an Executive Order will not trump the Senate bill once it becomes law, but in addition I would have some question about the specifics about the language of the Executive Order.

It states that “none of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act…” shall be used to cover abortions.  The question is what “appropriated” means in the context of the Senate health care bill.  The accounting trick that the HHS Secretary and House Senate Democrats applauded following the passage of the Senate bill, was that by not using any federal funds (tax dollars), but instead mandating that insurance policies must cover abortion, and that ALL people paying premiums for those policies would be required to pay an additional $1 a month (or the actual prorated cost of providing abortion coverage, whichever is higher), which would be held in a separate pot (separate from any federal funding) to cover abortion services.

NRO via the Patriot Room has provided this draft of President Obama’s Executive Order on abortion funding.

1. The Executive Order directs that the Hyde language found in sections 507 and 508 of the Labor HHH Appropriations Bill shall apply to the HR 3590.

SEC. 507.

(a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for any abortion.

(b) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.

(c) The term ??health benefits coverage?? means the package of services covered by a managed care provider or organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.

SEC. 508.

(a) The limitations established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion ?

(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or

(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.

(b) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as prohibiting the expenditure by a State, locality, entity, or private person of State, local, or private funds (other than a State?s or locality?s contribution to Medicaid matching funds.)

(c) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as restricting the ability of any managed care provider from offering abortion coverage or the ability of a State or locality to contract separately with such a provider for such coverage with State funds (other than a State?s or locality?s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.)

2. Under this Act, Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds under section 10503 of the Community Health Centers.

SEC. 10503. COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS AND THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS FUND. Pages 2355-2357 of H.R. 3590.

3. Under this Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the section 1303 of the HR 3590.

SEC. 1303. SPECIAL RULES. Pages 2069-2079 of H.R. 3590.

4. Under this Act, the Accommodation of Conscious is recognized.

(a) NONDISCRIMINATION.?A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not?

(1) subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination; or

(2) require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination,

on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

(b) DEFINITION.?In this section, the term ??healthcare entity?? includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.

(c) ADMINISTRATION.?The Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services is designated to receive complaints of discrimination based on this section, and coordinate the investigation of such complaints.

5. Addition Conscious Provisions

?(1) Nothing in this Act shall require an otherwise qualified health plan, including an Exchange-participating plan, to cover any items or services to which the issuer, plan sponsor, or purchaser has a moral or religious objection, provided the plan is at least actuarially equivalent to a qualified health plan that covers the essential health benefits.

?(2) If a health plan is permitted not to cover items or services under paragraph (1), then the issuer, plan sponsor, or purchaser shall not be required to include such items or services in such plan as a condition of (A) being eligible for a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction, or (B) avoiding any assessable payment or any other tax, assessment or penalty under this Act.

?(3) Nothing in this Act shall prohibit a qualified health plan, including an Exchange-participating plan, from contracting with an individual or institutional health care provider that declines to provide, participate in, or refer for an item or service to which the provider has a moral or religious objection.

?(4) Nothing in this Subsection shall be construed to deny, alter, or modify any right or duty any person may have under state or local law, or under federal laws other than this Act.?

?(5) Nothing in this Subsection shall be construed to authorize a health plan to deny coverage for all medical care, or for life-preserving care, to an individual based on a view that treats extending the life or preserving the health of the individual as of lower value than extending the life or preserving the health of others because of the individual?s disability or other characteristic.?

Back in December, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius explained that the Senate bill’s language used an accounting procedure (accounting trick) to provide funding for abortion:

“And I would say that the Senate language, which was negotiated by Senators Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray, who are very strong defenders of women’s health services and choices for women, take a big step forward from where the House left it with the Stupak amendment, and I think do a good job making sure there are choices for women, making sure there are going to be some plan options [that pay for abortions],” Sebelius said then.

“There would be an accounting procedure, but everybody in the exchange would do the same thing, whether you’re male or female, whether you’re 75 or 25, you would all set aside a portion of your premium that would go into a fund, and it would not be earmarked for anything. It would be a separate account that everyone in the exchange would pay,” Sebelius admitted about the abortion funding.”It is a bit confusing. But it’s really an accounting measure that would apply across the board”

It’s due to the fact that the Senate bill does provide for public funding for abortion (through a mandate for everyone in exchange qualifying policies to pay at least $1 a month that will go into a pool to pay for abortions) that has resulted in Stupak and some others refusing to vote for the Senate bill.

As I have been preparing this article, Ed Morrissey of Hot Air has reported that some news agencies (term used loosely) are stating that Stupak is now a yes vote:

It’s certainly a betrayal of his oft-proclaimed pro-life principles, however.  So far, the news has been reported by MS-NBC on its broadcast and website (as a banner headline) as “sources say,” and reported similarly by C-SPAN, but as of this moment, no written report has surfaced with any details.

This could be a false report, but it’s been no secret for the last few days that Stupak has worked hard to find a way to vote for this bill.  We’ll see if the promise of an executive order from Barack Obama did the trick.

Since Bart Stupak appears to be a very smart guy, it now appears he is just looking for some political cover that would allow him to vote with his party, even if it goes against the principles he has been saying he wouldn’t compromise.

Red State published the following letter from the Conference of Catholic Bishops that describes why the executive order is nothing more that a farce aimed at freeing up Stupak’s block to vote for the Senate bill:

We’ve consulted with legal experts on the specific idea of resolving the abortion funding problems in the Senate bill through executive order. We know Members have been looking into this in good faith, in the hope of limiting the damage done by abortion provisions in the bill. We believe, however, that it would not be fair to withhold what our conclusion was, as it may help members in assessing the options before them:

“One proposal to address the serious problem in the Senate health care bill on abortion funding, specifically the direct appropriating of new funds that bypass the Hyde amendment, is to have the President issue an executive order against using these funds for abortion. Unfortunately, this proposal does not begin to address the problem, which arises from decades of federal appellate rulings that apply the principles of Roe v. Wade to federal health legislation. According to these rulings, such health legislation creates a statutory requirement for abortion funding, unless Congress clearly forbids such funding. That is why the Hyde amendment was needed in 1976, to stop Medicaid from funding 300,000 abortions a year. The statutory mandate construed by the courts would override any executive order or regulation. This is the unanimous view of our legal advisors and of the experts we have consulted on abortion jurisprudence. Only a change in the law enacted by Congress, not an executive order, can begin to address this very serious problem in the legislation.”

Richard Doerflinger
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

If in fact that Pelosi needs the votes of the Stupak block, combined with the fact that neither Pelosi or Reid have been willing to give an inch to Stupak on changing the public funding language in the Senate Bill that the House is set to pass, you have to wonder what other deal has been made with Stupak to buy his vote, considering the executive order will apparently do nothing to block the public funding of abortion.

Update:

Multiple news agencies are reporting that one of the Stupak holdouts, Marcy Kaptur, has switched to a yes vote:

Bad news for ObamaCare opponents.  Marcy Kaptur, one of Stupak’s bloc of pro-life holdouts, announced that she’s voting yes:

Kaptur claims that the President and HHS Secretary will work to ensure current federal law on abortion funding is maintained.

Looks like the Representatives in the Stupak bloc are simply looking for any shred of cover that will allow them to vote yes on Obamacare.

As the day progressed, reports began to surface that Pelosi might still be short and that President Obama was considering issuing an executive order regarding the public funding for abortion.  The goal of the executive order would be to win the votes of Bart Stupak (D-MI) and nine other pro-life Democrats that won’t vote for the Senate bill while it contains public funding for abortion.

This evening, Gateway pundit is reporting that Pelosi remains short.  While we previously reported on Space and Matheson declaring their no votes, the news about Davis and about Clinton being brought in to make calls:

Glenn Reynolds reported– REPS. SPACE & MATHESON WILL BOTH VOTE NO. I’m also getting email reports that Rep. Lincoln Davis’s (D-TN) office is saying he will vote no, though I haven’t been able to find a published report to that effect.

There are reports that the socialists democrats even recruited Bill Clinton to make phone calls.

Gather.com has news that CNN is reporting that President Obama has recruited Bill Clinton to call undecided Democrats and try and convince them to vote yes for Obamacare:

Just a quick update: despite what you may be hearing from Fox, which has strangely had a more optimistic count for Democrats than even liberal websites, Pelosi DOES NOT have the votes yet.

…

Update #1 (5:48 PM EST): Zack Space just came out as a “no.” The Firedoglake count has him at undecided, so by their count, we just hit 216 no votes for the very first time. Will it stick? Who knows, but getting over the threshold is important.

The liberal site Firedoglake has the current count at 205 no, 204 yes, with 12 undecided and 10 they believe are holding firm with Stupak.  If their numbers are right, and they got all the undecided votes, then Pelosi would either have to cave and offer a deal to the pro-life Stupak group and come up with some language to address the Senate bill’s public funding of abortion.

Since it is a near certainty that the Senate would not act on any resolution or bill to ‘fix’ the Senate health carebill and remove the public funding for abortion, that really only leaves two choices.  First, Stupak and his group vote no.  Second, they go back on their word and vote for a bill with public funding for abortion.  It’s possible that Pelosi will help them by giving them some political cover by including some language to remove the public funding for abortion, even when she knows the Senate will never act on it.

ALLAHPUNDIT of Hot Air reports on a possible executive order on abortion aimed to win Stupak 10:

NRO says this “still isn’t nailed down,” but it sounds like the final stumbling block may be some sort of executive order about abortion to bring the Stupakers on board. And the pro-choicers are apparently okay with it. Gulp.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air lays out a couple reasons that Pelosi may have dumped the deem-and-pass strategy:

So what does this mean?  Hard to say.  It could be that the heat on Democrats for using DemonPass made it too difficult to hold onto votes; Pelosi may have calculated that she’d net more votes if she split the bills properly.  On the other hand, it could also mean that Pelosi has all the votes she needs and no longer needs the self-executing rule to get the bill out of the House.

Based on reports from the people and news agencies following the vote account, along with comments from House members, it would seem that Pelosi now has enough votes to not only dump the deem-and-pass strategy, but also not cave into Stupak and the pro-life Democrats who want her to add language to force the Senate to remove their public funding for abortion that is currently in the Senate health care bill.

From a top level source in the House comes the news that the Democrats are still short of the 216 votes they need to pass Obamacare. They have decided, however, to go for broke on Sunday and attempt to pass it whether or not they have enough support. They feel that only by forcing a vote can the force members off the fence. They hope that by employing all means at their disposal, they can round up enough votes for passage. But, if they don’t have the votes, they will allow the measure to be defeated. One source called it a “suicide run.”

The League of American Voters is strengthening its efforts.

GO HERE NOW to donate.

The Chamber of Commerce is now running new ads linking health care to the deficit and America’s possible loss of an AAA rating on its bonds.

Keep on phoning and keep on working!!!!!

Help The League Of American Voters Stop Obamacare And Prepare For Upcoming Battles — Go Here Now

As Morris says, the most important thing you can do is donate to help run ads exposing this deficit buster for what it is, and for those that oppose the bill to dial the phone and call those undecided and swing votes.

For instance, they are instructed not to use the total of 23 million people that will still be uninsured once the plan is in place, but instead to say 95% are covered. They say that 95% insured sounds better than 23 million uninsured. Also, the memo stated that saying that there would still be 23 million people uninsured after Obamacare is fully in force, would make President Obama’s statement to the joint sessions of Congress in September look bad, when he said that there were 30 million uninsured, which is why they needed to pass Obamacare.

While the memo warned in general about not getting into the specifics of CBO analysis numbers, it specifically warned that staffers and their bosses (the Congressmen) should not discuss the Medicare doc fix at all.  The memo stated that they would pass legislation with the doc fix in it after Obamacare was passed, but they did not include it in the Obamacare bill, because it would destroy the bills deficit neutrality.

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey has made the scanned memo available here.

Democrats in Congress are claiming the memo did not come from the Democratic leadership.  The Talking Points Memo has more details:

A senior Democratic leadership aide told TPMDC in an interview the memo, printed by Politico and leading the Drudge Report this afternoon a few days ahead of the health care vote Sunday, is “a hoax.”

“We have checked with every Democratic office, no one has ever seen it. It did not come out of a Democratic office,” the aide said, adding that media outlets printing the memo have not checked with leadership offices if the memo is authentic. A second Democratic leadership aide confirmed the memo was not sent by the Democrats. A third Democratic aide also said the memo is fake, citing the “draft” stamp and saying no one uses such things.

“If this were a Democratic communications person who wrote this, they should be fired, because this looks like Republican talking points,” the third Democratic aide told TPMDC.

In that article, I outlined two major manipulations that President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have been utilizing to force the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to score the bill as costing less than one trillion dollars in the first ten years, and reducing the deficit during that same time frame.

The ‘manipulations’ that I highlighted, along with those I didn’t, might be the greatest scam or fraud ever perpetrated on American citizens in our countries history.

The two manipulations that I focused on were the ten years of tax revenue vs. only six years of Obamacare expenses, and Pelosi and Reid blocking all attempts to pass the Medicare ‘doctors fix’, until after the CBO scored the reconciliation bill and Obamacare is passed.

Unfortunately, with CBS and other news agencies touting the “CBO certified” numbers and trumpeting how Obamacare will reduce the deficit, many Americans don’t understand the true cost or that the CBO summary numbers are meaningless, because of the manipulative limitations that the Democrats required the CBO to follow.

The Weekly Standard breaks down the real cost of the bill:

For a variety of reasons, this tally doesn’t remotely reflect the bill’s real ten-year costs.  First, it includes 2010 as the initial year.  As most people are well aware, 2010 has now been underway for some time.  Therefore, the CBO would normally count 2011 as the first year of its analysis, just as it counted 2010 as the first year when analyzing the initial House health bill in the middle of 2009.  But under strict instructions from Democratic leaders, and over strong objections from Republicans, the CBO dutifully scored 2010 as the first year of the latest version of Obamacare.  If the clock were started in 2011, the first full year that the bill could possibly be in effect, the CBO says that the bill’s ten-year costs would be $1.2 trillion.

But even that wouldn’t come close to reflecting the bill’s true costs.  The CBO projects that over the next four years, less than two percent of the bill’s alleged “ten year” costs would hit:  just $17 billion of the $940 billion in costs that the Democrats are claiming.  In fact, the costs through President Obama’s entire presidency, should he be reelected, would be $336 billion.  What would the president leave behind for his successor?  According to the CBO, he would leave behind costs of $837 billion during his successor’s first term alone.  If his successor were to serve a second term, he or she would inherit a cool $2.0 trillion in Obamacare costs — about six times its costs during Obama’s own tenure.  This legislation is a ticking time-bomb.

To see the bill’s true first-decade costs, we need to start the clock when the costs would actually start in any meaningful way: in 2014.  The CBO says that Obamacare would cost $2.0 trillion in the bill’s real first decade (from 2014 to 2023) — and much more in the decades to come.

But $2.0 trillion wouldn’t be the total ten-year costs.  Instead, that would merely be the “gross cost of coverage provisions.”  Based on earlier incarnations of the proposed overhaul, the total costs would be about a third higher (the exact number can’t be gleaned from the CBO’s analysis, which is only preliminary and is not a full scoring) — making the total price-tag between $2.5 and $3 trillion over the bill’s real first decade.

How would we pay for all of this?  According to the CBO, by diverting $1.1 trillion away from already barely-solvent Medicare and spending it on Obamacare, and by increasing taxes on the American people by over $1 trillion.  Among the Medicare cuts would be cuts of $25,000 in Medicare Advantage benefits per enrollee — up from $21,000 in the previous scoring.

That is the time based manipulation and massive cuts to Medicare.  Here is why Pelosi and Reid refused to pass a new ‘doctors fix’, even though the last one will expire on April 1st, resulting in a 21% cut in Medicare reimbursements to doctors.  All in the name of getting a good, if completely fictional, CBO score:

We’d also pay for this through increased deficits.  Under strict instructions from the Democrats, the CBO gave Obamacare credit for over $400 billion (from 2014 to 2023) in phony “savings” that would allegedly result from cutting doctor’s payments under Medicare by over 20 percent and never raising them back up.  As the CBO notes, one of two things could happen:  Congress could either follow through on these severe pay cuts — in which case doctors would view all Medicare patients as if they have the plague — or, Congress could eliminate these pay cuts — as everyone in Washington expects to have happen under the so-called “doc fix” — in which case the CBO projects that this bill would raise deficits by over $100 billion from 2017 to 2019 alone.

Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) appeared on Fox and Friends and explains how the CBO score and deficit reduction numbers that Pelosi and other Democrats touted yesterday have nothing to do with the real costs:

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air comments on the IRS expansion buried in Obamacare:

We’ve heard the double-counting argument (and it’s a good one), but the IRS expansion makes for a better, more immediate argument. Do we need the IRS checking on us every month to enforce the health-insurance mandate? Do Americans think hiring an additional 15,000 IRS agents to get even more involved in our lives is a great idea for reform?

As if all of this wasn’t bad enough, the rumblings are growing that the Senate may not even pass the reconciliation bill.  Instead, they will simply let the House pass the current Senate bill, or should I say “deem it passed” and then refuse to take up the House reconciliation bill in the Senate.   Leaving tax payers not only with the massive increase to the deficit, but also all of the special deals the Senate bill contains.

He promised that no families making less than $250,000 would receive a tax increase.  I suppose technically, forcing them to pay more for insurance coverage isn’t raising their taxes, but that doesn’t mean that it will be any easier on middle class families.

While Obamacare will add a 3.9% Medicare tax to investment income for the first time on families making over $250,000, the hardest hit families will likely be those having combined incomes around $100,000.

These folks will be too “rich” to qualify for ObamaCare’s subsidies, but probably too poor to easily afford the pricey insurance that the president’s plan forces them to buy.

Many of these $100K families will be obliged to buy a policy costing an average of $14,700 for the mid-level, “silver” health plan, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates. After income taxes, they’ll be spending almost a quarter of their net income for health insurance.

During the health care summit, President Obama stated as fact, a completely inaccurate statement.  He claimed that if Obamacare passed, insurance premiums would go down.  However, at that time, the CBO had already stated that while there would be a very minor decrease in premiums for large corporate plans, there would be a 10-13% increase in premiums for individuals purchasing insurance on their own.

The budget office concluded that premiums for people buying their own coverage would go up by an average of 10 percent to 13 percent, compared with the levels they’d reach without the legislation.

As always, it is very difficult to know whether the President simply doesn’t know what is contained in the health care bills he is forcing on the American public, or if he is being intentionally deceitful.

The gang of three (Obama, Pelosi and Reid) are guilty of what is tantamount to lying to the American public.  They have crafted and re-crafted their health care bills, until they get CBO (Congressional Budget Office) scores that they can ‘sell’ as reducing the deficit over the next 10 years.

Two of the most blatant examples of this are:

1. Having ten years of tax revenues, but delaying the implementation of the majority of the health care bill for four years, so there are only six years of costs.
2. Continuously pulling the Medicare ‘doctors fix’ from House and Senate bills, because if the fix is delayed, the CBO is not allowed to count the $300+ billion of cost in their bill costing and deficit calculations.

Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone could use the ‘budgeting’ scheme that Obama, Pelosi and Reid are using?  When you are trying to get a loan and the bank asks for your income and expenses, you could say, “well, this is how much my salary is for the year, but for my expenses, I’m not going to count January 1st through April 15th, because that would make it look like I couldn’t afford the house, so I am only going to count my bills after April 15th.”

No bank would accept that approach, but that is exactly the manipulation that exists in the Democrat’s health care bill, so that Obama, Pelosi and Reid can say, “it reduces the deficit over the first decade.”   Of course it does, if you manipulate the numbers, include ten years of tax revenues, but only six years of program costs, you are able to make it look good for that first ten years.

Even using this manipulation, Pelosi and Reid have had to play ping pong with the CBO, because even with four extra years of tax revenues, they have not been able to show any ‘paper’ deficit reductions, without including all kinds of subtle manipulations to the language of the bill, such as mandating fictional cost savings in certain programs.  As I write this, Pelosi has not been able to provide language for the health-care reconciliation bill, because the CBO score keeps coming back too high, which won’t allow them to perpetuate the lie that it will reduce the deficit.  The bill was supposed to be published online days ago.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air comments on Pelosi’s game of continuous CBS scoring:

The entire political world waited yesterday for a report from the Congressional Budget Office that would either allow Democrats to schedule a vote on Saturday for ObamaCare or collapse the effort altogether.  The six PM deadline came and went without a peep out of the CBO, pushing any potential vote into next week.  What happened?  The Washington Times reports today that the CBO has found itself buried under the task of continually re-scoring ObamaCare proposals — and they’re not alone.

The second, and equally egregious, manipulation relates to the doctors fix.  For years, the Medicare reimbursement schedule  has been flawed, and as a result, each year Congress passes a doctors fix, so that doctors will be paid a reasonable reimbursement.  This year, not passing the ‘doctors fix’ would result in doctor’s Medicare reimbursements being cut by 21%, which would result in most doctors immediately stopping the treatment of all Medicare patients.

However, there is a problem, in order to get a CBO score that shows Obamacare reduces the deficit over the next decade, the ‘doctors fix’ cannot be current law.  The CBO can only count the proposed legislation it is scoring and enacted law.  Reid and Pelosi have killed each bill that has been introduced that includes the doctors fix, because they know that their ‘fictional’ deficit reduction of $130 billion or so over the next decade, would immediately become a $200+ billion deficit increase.   Note: several independent reviews of the Senate bill show a REAL first decade actual cost adding $1 trillion to the deficit, vs. the fictional $130 billion deficit reduction.

The reason for this is that by delaying the doctors fix, the CBO is required to count that 21% that will be added back with the doctors fix, as a cut to Medicare.  So, from the CBO score’s perspective, Medicare has been cut by $300+ billion, when in fact it will be added back as soon as the doctors fix is finally passed.

The order of passage of the bills is key to Pelosi, Reid and Obama’s deception.  So, if health care does pass this weekend, then expect to see a doctors fix bill rushed through next week and signed into law.  It’s important to note, that the gang of three are all on record saying that Medicare reimbursements won’t be cut by 21%, but will be fixed separately, they just don’t come clean with the fact that the reason for doing them separately is to manipulate the CBO score.

Mr. President, is this what you meant by “changing the way Washington works”?  Is lying to the American public really the hope and change you promised?

Cuccinelli warned Pelosi that her parliamentary trick might be unconstitutional, laying the groundwork for a Supreme Court challenge if Pelosi goes through with a vote on a ‘rule’, which would pass the Senate bill using deem-and-pass, rather than a straight up-and-down vote on the Senate bill, as has been promised by Pelosi and President Obama:

Virginia’s attorney general urged U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi not to use an arcane parliamentary tactic to pass health care reform without a direct vote, warning in a letter Wednesday that the move might be unconstitutional.

Republican Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, who last month went to court to oppose the federal plan to regulate greenhouse gases, said in the letter that using the so-called “deem and pass” rule would expose President Barack Obama’s signature domestic initiative to a constitutional challenge.

Cuccinelli joins other Republicans who have opposed the possible maneuver, which both political parties have used in the past. Under the procedure, the Senate-passed health bill would be “deemed” to have passed if House members vote in favor of a rule governing another bill.

“Based upon media interviews and statements which I have seen, you are considering this approach because it might somehow shield members of Congress from taking a recorded vote on an overwhelmingly unpopular Senate bill,” Cuccinelli wrote in the letter to the Democratic speaker. “This is an improper purpose under the bicameralism requirements of Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, one of the purposes of which is to make our representatives fully accountable for their votes.”

These thirty Democratic Congressmen all voted for Obamacare the first time around. But Pelosi cannot count on their votes again as Obama tries to jam the bill through using reconciliation in the Senate. These members are all vulnerable and are frightened of the voter backlash their support for Obamacare has kindled.

The League of American voters is running ads in each of their districts to press them to vote no on Obamacare. See their ad on the screen at left. And give us money to run the ad!

CLICK HERE TO DONATE FUNDS TO FIGHT OBAMA’S HEALTH CARE PROGRAM!

But also, pick up the phone and call these swing Congressmen. Let them hear from you! Here’s the list:

PLEASE CALL!	DC OFFICE	LOCAL OFFICE
Harry Mitchell	(202) 225-2190	(480) 946-2411
Gabrielle Giffords	(202) 225-2542	(520) 881-3588
Ann Kirkpatrick	(202) 225-2315	(928) 226-6914
Jerry McNerney	(202) 225-1947	925-833-0643
John Salazar	202-225-4761	970-245-7107
Jim Himes	(202) 225-5541	(866) 453-0028
Alan Grayson	(202) 225-2176	(407) 841-1757
Bill Foster	(202) 225-2976	630-406-1145
Baron Hill	202 225 5315	812 288 3999
Mark Schauer	(202) 225-6276	(517) 780-9075
Gary Peters	(202) 225-5802	(248) 273-4227
Dina Titus	(202) 225-3252	702-256-DINA (3462)
Carol Shea-Porter	(202) 225-5456	(603) 743-4813
Tim Bishop	(202) 225-3826	(631) 696-6500
John Hall	(202) 225-5441	(845) 225-3641 x49371
Bill Owens	(202) 225-4611	(315) 782-3150
Mike Arcuri	(202)225-3665	(315)793-8146
Dan Maffei	(202) 225-3701	(315) 423-5657
Earl Pomneroy	(202) 225-2611	(701) 224-0355
Steven Driehaus	(202) 225-2216	(513) 684-2723
Mary Jo Kilroy	(202) 225-2015	(614) 294-2196
Zach Space	(202) 225-6265	(330) 364-4300
Kathy Dahlkemper	(202) 225-5406	(814) 456-2038
Patrick Murphy	(202) 225-4276	(215) 826-1963
Christopher Carney	(202) 225-3731	(570) 585-9988
Paul Kanjorski	(202) 225-6511	(570) 825-2200
John Spratt	(202) 225-5501	(803)327-1114
Tom Perriello	(202) 225-4711	(276) 656-2291
Alan Mollohan	(202) 225-4172	(304) 623-4422
Nick Rahall	(202) 225-3452	(304) 252-5000
Steve Kagen	(202) 225-5665	(920) 437-1954

Let’s get busy to save health care in America! Thank you.

Hot Air has an exclusive first look at a new study that uses the same accounting method that Pelosi’s left-wing group used, but eliminates the fictional cuts to medicare that everyone knows will not happen, and have only been put in the bill to help the CBO score and get the bill passed.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air:

Now, Americans for Tax Reform and the Beacon Hill Institute have conducted their own study using CAP’s methodology and determined that ObamaCare will destroy jobs, not create them.  Hot Air has an exclusive first look at the BHI executive summary:

Here’s an excerpt of the new report that is on Hot Air:

Once we dismiss purported cost savings such as the proposed Medicare cuts, the job gains produced by the CAP methodology become job losses. We  utilized the same econometric model used by the CAP authors to derive employment effects of PPACA, but with the unsupportable costs savings stripped from the model. We provide two estimates:

1. The first estimate applies the CAP methodology to the CMS estimate that the PPACA would increase national health expenditures by $24.8 billion over the baseline case by 2019. This estimate shows that PPACA would kill 120,000 jobs by 2019.
2. The second estimate applies the CAP methodology to a scenario in which we begin with the CMS estimate but in addition eliminate the $437 billion in Medicare cuts assumed by CAP and then factor in an additional $70 billion in discretionary spending that the CBO indicated would take place under the Bill. The addition of these figures would increase national health expenditures by $148.8 billion in 2019 and thus kill 700,000 jobs by 2019.

Visit Hot Air to see the entire report.

A survey by the New England Journal of Medicine cites fears of increased patient loads and decreased pay, along with already having large debt loads, as reasons why they would not recommend the medical profession to others and would consider leaving if Obamacare passes.   Nearly 50% of primary care physicians are considering leaving or feel they will be forced out of their medical practices if Obamacare is passed.

CNS News reports on the New England Journal of Medicine Survey:

More than 29 percent (29.2) percent of the nearly 1,200 doctors who responded to the survey said they would quit the profession or retire early if health reform legislation becomes law. If a public option were included in the legislation, as several liberal Senators have indicated they would like, the number would jump to 45.7 percent.

The medical journal published the results in its March and April edition, saying: “While a sudden loss of half of the nations physicians seems unlikely, a very dramatic decrease in the physician workforce could become a reality as an unexpected side effect of health reform.”

Kevin Perpetua, managing partner for the Medicus Firm, reported that a reform bill could be “the final straw” in an already financially precarious industry.

“Many physicians feel that they cannot continue to practice if patient loads increase while pay decreases,” Perpetua said in the study. “The overwhelming prediction from physicians is that health reform, if implemented inappropriately, could create a detrimental combination of circumstances, and result in an environment in which it is not possible for most physicians to continue practicing medicine.”

“With an average debt of $140,000, and many graduates approaching a quarter of a million dollars in school loans, being a doctor is becoming less and less feasible,” Perpetua said. “Health-care reform and increasing government control of medicine may be the final straw that causes the physician workforce to break down.”

The survey shows that many doctors already find their situations difficult:

– 36 percent said that they would not recommend medicine as a profession to others, regardless of whether health-care reform passes;
– another 27 percent would still recommend medicine as a career, but not if the current reform proposal passes.

In total, 63 percent of doctors would not recommend the profession after health-care reform passes. Just 12 percent do not recommend becoming a physician now but think they would if current reform proposals pass.

Primary-care physicians, those who work in the critical fields of family and internal medicine, not only feel that they would want to quit but that they might be cast out of medicine. 46.3 percent of those physicians said that they would either want to leave medicine or that they would be “forced out” by the changes to the system.

During today’s Situation Room on CNN, Jack Cafferty launched an attack on Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats.  Calling them out on the underhanded and cowardly tactics that are being employed to pass Obamacare.  Matthew Balan of News Busters provides some insight and the transcript:

On Tuesday’s Situation Room, CNN’s Jack Cafferty returned to targeting Nancy Pelosi, this time for endorsing the controversial “Slaughter Solution” to passing ObamaCare through the House of Representatives without a vote. Cafferty labeled the proposal “beyond sleazy,” and later flatly remarked, “This reeks!” The commentator even gave some rare kudos to House Republicans.

The full transcript of Jack Cafferty’s segment, which began 14 minutes into the 5 pm Eastern hour of Tuesday’s Situation Room:

CAFFERTY: Just when you think you’ve seen it all in Washington, along comes something like this. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may try to pass the controversial health care reform bill without making members vote on it- simply unbelievable. Pelosi says she might use a procedural tactic where the House will vote on the package of fixes to the Senate bill, and then that vote would signify that lawmakers- quote, ‘deem’ the health care bill to be passed.

Politically speaking, this is beyond sleazy. It’s meant to protect House Democrats, who are all running for reelection in November, from having to make a tough vote up or down on health care reform. Pelosi says of this process- quote, ‘I like it, because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill,’ unquote. In Nancy Pelosi’s world, accountability is a dirty word. The Senate bill, of course, contains many provisions that are unpopular among some House Democrats, including language on abortion funding and taxes on high-cost so-called Cadillac insurance plans.

This tactic has been used in the past, but never- never for something as big and important as the $900 billion health care reform bill- never. Republicans are jumping all over this, rightfully so. They’re painting it as a way for Democrats to avoid taking responsibility, which is exactly what it is. Some even suggest it’s unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, President Obama’s campaigning relentlessly, calling on lawmakers to pass health care reform- quote, ‘I want some courage. I want us to do the right thing,’ unquote. Well, the irony here is if Nancy Pelosi gets her way, it won’t take much courage at all on the part of our so-called representatives, will it?

Here’s the question: should Nancy Pelosi be allowed to push health care reform through the House without a vote? Go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile, post a comment on my blog. Wolf?

WOLF BLITZER (off-camera): We’re earning a lot about reconciliation, about ‘deeming’ bills passed into law. We’re getting a little civics lesson out there, aren’t we, Jack?

CAFFERTY: We’re learning a lot more about lack of political guts.

BLITZER: Yeah, but you and I know that’s been around for a while, right?

CAFFERTY: Not quite in this obnoxious form or noxious form. This reeks!

BLITZER: Jack Cafferty- telling it the way it is. Jack, thank you.

As dirty as the process appears, the results of Obamacare will be so much worse.  Pajamas Media describes the liberal thinking that has led to the failures of the post office and the city of Detroit, and how the lessons we didn’t learn from their collapses will be re-lived in the health care system if Obamacare is passed:

Before casting “yea” votes in favor of a government health care grab later this week, wavering House Democrats may want to struggle out of the left’s ideological fog for a moment and consider the sad, but instructive, tales of the U.S. Postal Service and the city of Detroit.  Both are poster boys (excuse me, poster persons) for how government can get almost anything gloriously wrong.

That the U.S. Postal Service is swimming in red ink isn’t news. The nation’s postal service, despite its first-class mail monopoly, swims in red ink a lot. The important news to Americans as they follow Washington’s three-ring health care circus is that U.S. Postmaster General Joe E. Potter wants to drop Saturday mail delivery as a cost-cutting measure.

To repeat, the postmaster general wants to reduce service in an effort to staunch red ink. That’s service as in mail delivery, the U.S. Postal Service’s bread and butter. Imagine a hamburger joint announcing to its customers that it plans to stop selling hamburgers a day or two a week to cut costs. Of course, a hamburger joint wouldn’t limit the sale of hamburgers to keep its costs down. The guy who owns the hamburger joint would get creative in his marketing and pricing to sell more hamburgers. He might trim costs operationally but not at the expense of selling as many hamburgers as he and his help could flip. Why the difference? The hamburger joint can go out of business. The U.S. Postal Service, being immune to risk, cannot.

…

Detroit is upside-down liberal thinking gone wild — almost literally. What’s happening in the Motor City gives us a hint to what may lie ahead for government-run health care. Stick with me on this one.

Mayor Dave Bing, a former NBA standout, plans to raze areas of Detroit that are blighted or abandoned. Bing plans to replace ramshackle plots with green spaces and trees. The total area in Detroit that the mayor wishes to raze surpasses all of Youngstown, Ohio, in square miles. Mayor Bing says that razing decrepit and abandon sections of Detroit is a cost-cutting move that will save the city millions of dollars in police and fire services, among others.

What’s the joke many are telling:  Government Health Care — Post office efficiencies, with IRS compassion.

While Stupak’s primary concern is the Senate bill’s public funding of abortion, that isn’t his only concern.  He says that there are other problems with the Senate bill that he and other House members fear will never be fixed if they agree to pass the Senate bill.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air comments on the interview:

Bart Stupak not only says that the dozen members in his coalition aren’t “really” wavering, the Democratic Congressman also says that abortion isn’t the only problem with the final ObamaCare push. Stupak notes that there are “250″ bills passed by the House languishing in the Senate, and wonders why anyone would assume the Senate would act any more enthusiastically on a reconciliation bill.

It would appear that Pelosi is busy playing Harry Reid’s game of lets make a deal, trying to win votes by cutting special deals, to meet their self imposed deadline of an up or down vote no later than the 21st.

Last week, during one of President Obama’s Obamacare pep rallies, he claimed that his bill would save money and reduce the deficit by $1 trillion over the next decade.  Even with the double counting of the cuts to medicare, and without counting the ‘doc fix’ bill, the best CBO score that they were able to get is about $140 trillion deficit reduction over the next decade.  Of course, independent analysis of the bill from organizations like the Wall Street Journal state it will actually add around $1 trillion to the deficit over the next decade.  Yet, the President states that it will reduce the deficit by $1 trillion.

Even in light of the Teleprompter, one might assume that was a ‘mistake’.  Yet, he made the same statement again, a few days alter.  It appears that President Obama has reached the stage where the truth is irrelevant and he believes the means justify the ends, even if it includes lying to the American public.

Yesterday in Ohio, President Obama claimed that his health care reform would reduce health care premiums by 3,000 percent:

Monday in Strongsville, Ohio, President Obama said  that ObamaCare will reduce health insurance premiums by “3,000 percent.” Considering that a 50 percent decrease in premiums would mean that we’d be paying half as much as we now pay for health insurance and that a 100 percent decrease in premiums would mean that we’d be paying nothing for health insurance, President Obama is telling us that insurance companies will actually start paying us money to keep our health insurance.

President Obama has tried to create a wave of anger towards insurance companies in order to get support for Obamacare.  He routinely tells the American public that insurance companies are to blame for the high cost of health care.  Yet, as is often the case with this White House, the truth is far different than the rhetoric:

Whatever their sins, insurers are mainly intermediaries; they pass along the costs of the delivery system. In 2009, the largest 14 insurers had profits of roughly $9 billion; that approached 0.4 percent of total health spending of $2.472 trillion. This hardly explains high health costs. What people need to know is that Obama’s plan evades health care’s major problems and would worsen the budget outlook. It’s a big new spending program when government hasn’t paid for the spending programs it already has.

Mr. President, the campaign is over.  It’s time to stop making campaignesque lies, and start shooting straight with the American public.

The following comes from the National Review via Sister Toldjah:

Sitting in an airport, on his way home to Michigan, Rep. Bart Stupak, a pro-life Democrat, is chagrined. “They’re ignoring me,” he says, in a phone interview with National Review Online. “That’s their strategy now. The House Democratic leaders think they have the votes to pass the Senate’s health-care bill without us. At this point, there is no doubt that they’ve been able to peel off one or two of my twelve. And even if they don’t have the votes, it’s been made clear to us that they won’t insert our language on the abortion issue.”

According to Stupak, that group of twelve pro-life House Democrats — the “Stupak dozen” — has privately agreed for months to vote ‘no’ on the Senate’s health-care bill if federal funding for abortion is included in the final legislative language. Now, in the debate’s final hours, Stupak says the other eleven are coming under “enormous” political pressure from both the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.). “I am a definite ‘no’ vote,” he says. “I didn’t cave. The others are having both of their arms twisted, and we’re all getting pounded by our traditional Democratic supporters, like unions.”

[...]

Stupak notes that his negotiations with House Democratic leaders in recent days have been revealing. “I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance,” he says. “Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.” The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, “are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party.”

What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

If Obamacare passes, Stupak says, it could signal the end of any meaningful role for pro-life Democrats within their own party. “It would be very, very hard for someone who is a right-to-life Democrat to run for office,” he says. “I won’t leave the party. I’m more comfortable here and still believe in a role within it for the right-to-life cause, but this bill will make being a pro-life Democrat much more difficult. They don’t even want to debate this issue. We’ll probably have to wait until the Republicans take back the majority to fix this.”

[...]

And the politics of the issue are pretty rough. “This has really reached an unhealthy stage,” Stupak says. “People are threatening ethics complaints on me. On the left, they’re really stepping it up. Every day, from Rachel Maddow to the Daily Kos, it keeps coming. Does it bother me? Sure. Does it change my position? No.”

ALLAHPUNDIT of Hot Air is skeptical about Stupak’s claim about Dems wanting to abort babies to save money:

Let’s think about this. Imagine you’re a pro-choice Democrat. You know Stupak is passionately opposed to funding abortion. You know he’s willing to chat with any conservative media outlet that’ll have him. You also know that Pelosi’s coalition is extremely fragile. Knowing all that, why would you hand him a political grenade this explosive? You’re not going to flip him; you know he’s going to run to NRO or Fox News to tell them what you said; and you know that it’s going to electrify opposition to the bill.

Not only did Stupak describe the Democrat’s reprehensible reasoning for encouraging abortion and wanting public funding for it, but he also described more examples of the Chicago-style politics that Obama brought to Washington.   When the bribery doesn’t work, they simply threaten members of Congress.

Is this really “change we can believe in”?

Not satisfied with the seemingly stalled health care reform efforts in Washington, state lawmakers in Richmond, Virginia want to make sure residents of the Old Dominion State aren’t subject to a federal mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance.  This week the Virginia House of Delegates passed legislation that would make it illegal to do just that.

Many Democrats on Capitol Hill want a reform plan that would force citizens to buy health care or face severe penalties. Republicans in their near total rejection of the Democratic reforms have objected. The election of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) and the apparent retreat of the White House and Congressional leaders on health care reform would appear to make a mandate unlikely. But Virginia lawmakers pushed ahead nonetheless.  It isn’t clear what actual impact the Virginia legislation (which according to the Richmond Times Dispatch is expected to be signed into law by Governor Bob McDonnell-R)  would have if federal lawmakers are able to pass a law with the mandate.  If the federal law preempted state prerogatives, lawsuits would certainly follow.

This bill was passed by a Democratically controlled legislature in Virginia.  It is sure to be the first of many such state laws passed.  A number of other state legislatures are currently working on similar bills, which if Obamacare is passed, will almost certainly result in the Supreme Court getting involved and deciding the question:

Can the federal government force an individual to buy something, whether that something is health insurance or a GM car?

The invitations have gone out to leadership in both parties to attend Barack Obama’s ostensibly bipartisan summit on health care.  Is this the event of the social season, a political debate, or Kabuki theater?  Depending on who answers, it seems that no one is quite sure what to expect from any of the participants, assuming the debate takes place at all.

Many Republicans fear that this summit will be nothing more than political theater aimed at helping provide cover for the President and Democrats in Congress as they continue to work behind closed doors to come up with a plan to pass Obamacare via budget reconciliation.

The format that the White House has laid out has done little to alleviate Republican fears.  After opening remarks by President Obama, followed by a Republican and a Democrat, President Obama will moderate a discussion among the 37 law makers invited to the meeting.  Considering what the President has invested in the Democratic bill, along with the deals he has cut with union leaders, Pharma and the insurance industry, many don’t feel he can be an impartial moderator.

Making matters worse is the fact that the White House and Congressional Democrats have not been able to keep quiet the fact they continue to work on a compromise bill between House and Senate Democrats, along with trying to win the support of 51 Senators, which is needed to ram Obamacare through via reconciliation.

In fact, on the same day that President Obama sent out his summit invitations, a Democratic member of the Senate said the decision has been made to proceed with reconciliation:

“I think a decision has just been made — we’re just going to go ahead” with a reconciliation bill, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, told reporters on Friday.

All indications are that the Democrat’s strategy is to have their compromise bill, along with a reconciliation plan, ready to go prior to the Health-Care Summit on February 25th.

Then on the 25th, President Obama will hold his summit, which will have been carefully orchestrated to showcase the revised health care bill that the White House, Congressional Democrats and special interest groups have been working on behind closed doors for nearly two months.   Once the summit is over, they will be able to say, “we had the meeting, we tried to get Republican support, but they still want to do nothing but obstruct health care reform.  We have no choice but to pass health care reform by using reconciliation.”

This is all political theater, because if the White House and Democratic leaders were truly interested in coming up with a bipartisan solution, they wouldn’t be continuing to work on their partisan bill behind closed doors, and they wouldn’t have already made the decision to proceed with reconciliation.

Scott Brown ran in Massachusetts by saying, “I will be the 41st vote to stop the Senate health care bill.”  That promise resulted in nearly two thirds of the independents in the bluest of blue states voting for a Republican.  Add to that, poll after poll shows that the American public is not happy with the Democrat’s health care bills.

There can be no doubt left that the majority of Americans don’t want the Democrat’s health care bill, which they continue to work on in the back rooms of the White House and Congress.

Democrats are betting on the fact that voters have very short memories, as the mid-term elections are less than nine months away.

Visit Newsmax for more information about how you can help stop Obmacare:

Foxnews has more on the President’s Congressional trip:

Striving to reach a deal on health care, President Barack Obama planned a trip to Congress on Thursday to urge rank-and-file House Democrats to yield on key issues still standing in the way of a historic legislative achievement.

Obama’s late afternoon visit comes amid intense White House negotiations with Democratic leaders aimed at settling core differences between bills passed by the House of Representatives and Senate that must be resolved before the sweeping overhaul legislation can pass.

Reforming health care is Obama’s top domestic priority.

After having key Democrats and unions negotiating at the White House this week, President Obama now will go to Capital Hill to try and heal the divide forming between House and Senate members over differences in their health care bills.

However, he continues to fail to honor his campaign pledges.  He promised at least eight times to televise health care negotiations on C-SPAN to prevent back door deals, which he has failed to do, instead opting for closed door meetings on Capital Hill and at the White House, where deals with unions have been cut and buy offs of Senators have taken place.

Candidate Barack Obama also promised to reach across the aisle and work with Republicans on key legislation, but days after taking office he declared “I won” when locking the Republicans out of the stimulus bill negotiations.  “I won” now appears to be President Obama’s mantra as he continues to lock Republicans out of health care negotiations, while he chooses to work to cut a deal with Democrats, unions and health industry lobbyists to pass Obamacare.

This from Hot Air:

I never believed that House Dems would have the stones to walk away, but suddenly there are a lot of flares going up. Rangel’s warning that the bill won’t be done this month; Emanuel Cleaver’s telling nutroots bloggers that this is no fait accompli; and Politico’s reporting mounting anger over the “Cadillac plan” tax. Quoth Anthony Weiner, “We keep hearing them squeal like pigs in the Senate that they had a tough time getting to 60. Well, it wasn’t particularly a picnic for us to get to 218…The Senate Kabuki dance has lost its magic on those of us in the House.”

While once again no Republicans were present, and President Obama still refused to honor his promise to televise negotiations on C-SPAN, his morning meeting to finalize details on Obamacare turned into an all day battle:

What was expected to be a morning meeting with the president on health care turned into all-day, intense negotiations with Democratic leaders trying to find compromise on differences over House and Senate health care bills.

The meetings did not finally wrap up until after 6:30 p.m. ET.

Senior congressional Democratic sources told CNN that the White House is pushing them hard to move quickly to resolve differences on a broad range of issues. The president and his top aides are being more aggressive than ever before in trying to broker a deal.

Though Democratic leaders and White House officials are tight-lipped about specifics, there is a deep House-Senate Democratic divide over how to pay for health care reform.

While the consensus opinion is that in the end the Democrats in the House and Senate will pass a health care bill, it appears negotiations between the House, Senate, White House and the unions (yes, hard to believe the unions are in the negotiations) are not going smoothly.   Many believed that if the Senate was able to steal and buy enough votes to pass Obamacare before Christmas that Pelosi would simply rubber stamp the bill and have House Democrats pass the Senate version.  If it’s true that Pelosi agreed t0 do that, she clearly underestimated her ability to dictate to House Democrats how and what they should vote on.

A new Rasmussen Reports poll shows nearly 50% of Americans strongly oppose Obamacare:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 17% believe passage of the legislation will achieve the stated goal of reducing health care costs. Fifty-seven percent (57%) think it will lead to higher costs.

Fifty-two percent (52%) also believe passage of the legislation will lead to a decline in the quality of care.

Overall, 40% of voters nationwide favor the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. Fifty-five percent (55%) are opposed. As has been the case throughout the debate, those who feel strongly about the issue are more likely to be opposed. Just 19% of voters Strongly Favor the plan while 45% are Strongly Opposed.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air has this analysis of the new poll results:

The internals on the poll are interestingly contradictory.  For instance, the youngest voters favor passage 58/34, but then they also believe that passage will make health-care quality worse, 38/28, with 21% believing it will stay the same.  That’s actually the best showing among age demographics for believing ObamaCare will make health care better.  Majorities believe it will make it worse starting from age 40 up, and 49% of thirtysomethings believe the same (against 11% who think it will improve health care).  Given that the youngest voters have poor turnout records, this is not a good sign for ObamaCare supporters in Congress this year.

These numbers reinforce why the Democrats have written the bill behind closed doors and attempted to pass it before the American public could read or give feedback to their representatives.  As has been the case all along, the more Americans learn about Obamacare, the less they like it.

The number one long term goal of President Obama and Democrats in Congress is to have a single payer system.   Most Democrats realize they have to do this in steps in order for the US citizens to accept it.  Some say like the old folk warning that if you put a frog in boiling water it will jump out, but if you put it in cold water and gradually raise the temperature, it will boil to death without ever realizing what was happening.  However, while most Democrats realize they have to take the ‘slow boil’ approach, others have said the only real reform is to immediately move to a single payer system, and simply expand Medicare to cover all US citizens.  Last month, prior to Harry Reid’s now famous payoffs to key Senators to pass his health care bill, a compromise that was discussed was expanding Medicare to all people 55 and older, which much to Reid’s chagrin, several Democrats in congress honestly admitted was a great triumph for those pushing for a single payer system.

In December, when Harry Reid was attempting to expand Medicare, the Mayo Clinic warned that an expansion of Medicare could force out of business many hospitals and doctors already struggling to stay afloat.   A spokesperson for Mayo said that last year the Mayo Clinic lost $840 million dollars treating Medicare patients.

On Thursday, the Mayo clinic announced that it would no longer treat Medicare patients in its Glendale Arizona hospital, and associated clinics.  They said that the Glendale hospital had lost $120 million last year treating Medicare patients.

Bloomberg (via BigGovernment) reported on further fallout that might be coming:

Mayo’s move to drop Medicare patients may be copied by family doctors, some of whom have stopped accepting new patients from the program, said Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a telephone interview yesterday.

“Many physicians have said, ‘I simply cannot afford to keep taking care of Medicare patients,’” said Heim, a family doctor who practices in Laurinburg, North Carolina. “If you truly know your business costs and you are losing money, it doesn’t make sense to do more of it.”

Mayor Bloomberg is bothered by a fact that doesn’t seem to phase Democratic Congressmen that voted for the House or Senate bill:

“”You know, if you really want to object to something in this bill, number one, I have asked congressperson after congressperson,” Bloomberg told The Huffington Post. “Not one can explain to me what’s in the bill, even in the House version — certainly not in the other version.”

“”And so for them to vote on a bill that they don’t understand whatsoever, really, you got to question how — what kind of government we have,” Bloomberg added. “Number two, when they talk about bending the curve — as the governor said — bending the curve is a flimflam euphemism for increasing costs, but we’re going to say we’ll do it at slightly lower rate than we would have otherwise.”

“”They are not talking about reducing costs,” he concluded. “They’re talking about changing the first derivate, slowing the growth down. And when you look at where the cost savings are going to be, well, they’re going to cut something out of Medicare and Medicaid. Now anybody that runs for office will tell you, you don’t do that. I mean, the bottom line is it’s so politically explosive, it really would be a first time in the history of the world that they ever cut anything [from those programs].”"

Bloomberg is raising a concern that voters all across the country have — how can a Congressman vote for a bill that he hasn’t read?

Jonathan Adler of the Volokh Conspiracy addresses the slippery slope of the commerce clause:

In my view, the biggest problem with the argument for the constitutionality of an individual mandate is that it is an argument without limit.  Basically, the argument is that if Congress can regulate economic activity X, then it can also mandate that each and every American engage in economic activity X.  If this is true for health care, there is no reason why it is not also true for Christmas trees, savings bonds, or GM cars.  In short, Congress could mandate universal participation in any economic activity and mandate the purchase of any product or service it chooses, so long as it does so as part of a broader regulatory scheme.

While some of the language in the majority opinion and Justice Scalia’s concurrence in Raich implies Congress has such power, this approach would create a commerce power without limit, an outcome which both Lopez and Morrison said was incompatible with the concept of enumerated powers. so to embrace this view, as I argued in this article, is to eviscerate their holdings.  As I believe Lopez and Morrison are more consistent with the text of the Commerce Clause and the principles of enumerated powers, I would prefer that the Supreme Court uphold these decisions and overturn or severely limit Gonzales v. Raich, Wickard v. Filburn, and a few others.

I encourage you to read the rest of Mr. Adler’s article at the Volokh Conspiracy.  For those of us that are not constitutional lawyers, it provides a nice understanding of the basic arguments and issues related to a federal mandate to purchase health insurance.

In the first step in testing the constitutionality of the health care bill, the Republicans have pushed for a vote in the Senate.

This first challenge is related to the requirement that everyone in the country being required to have health insurance or pay a $750 penalty.  Many feel the federal government cannot require individuals to purchase health insurance, and therefore also should not be able to charge them a penalty if they don’t have health insurance.

The Washington Examiner reports:

Sens. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and John Ensign, R-Nev., on Tuesday raised a point of order against the legislation on behalf of a caucus of conservative senators.

Ensign said the bill violates individual freedom of choice by requiring people to purchase health insurance or be subjected to fines and penalties.

“Forcing every American to purchase a product is absolutely inconsistent with our Constitution and the freedoms our Founding Fathers hoped to protect,‚Äù Senator DeMint said. “This is not at all like car insurance, you can choose not to drive but Americans will have no choice whether to buy government-approved insurance.”

There are other aspect of the bill that might result in constitutional challenges.  There are multiple clauses that state that any attempt to repeal or amend certain aspects of the bill will be ‘out of order’.  Senator DeMint has said that this is a change to the rules of the Senate and therefore should require a 2/3 majority of the Senate to pass.  The reasoning is that the clauses as written mean that the only way they can be amended or repealed would be with a 2/3 majority of the Senate.

Also, there is some question as to whether it is constitutional for Nebraska to get a free ride on Medicaid expansion, which in affect will be the other 49 states paying Nebraska’s Medicaid bill.

UPDATE:  I am adding a couple interesting notes from Hot Air on this same subject:

In other words, this is a voluntary mandate — at least for now.  The IRS can fine you for flouting the minimum-coverage mandate, but if you refuse to pay, they can’t do anything about it.  They can’t fine you, prosecute you, or even put a lien against your earnings or property.  They apparently can still send you angry letters, but they’ll have the same impact as deadlines on the Iranian nuclear-weapons program.

Update: Matt Lewis reports that Sens. Lindsey Graham and DeMint have asked the South Carolina Attorney General to investigate Harry Reid’s buyoffs in the ObamaCare bill.  I doubt that much will come of it, but it’s worth watching.

Update II: Apparently I left my irony sliced a little too thin.  There is no such thing as a “voluntary mandate,” of course, which was my point.  If the bill blocks prosecution and fine collection for this mandate, then the mandate doesn’t exist.  And Democrats will absolutely remove this section in a year or two when they can schedule another midnight vote, which will make it a very real mandate then.

Dick Morris

I have stated in a couple of posts that people, especially young people, will simply opt to pay the $750 a year penalty rather than purchase health insurance.

Since the health care bill will remove pre-existing illness exclusions and not allow insurance companies to charge more based on a person’s medical history, why would an otherwise healthy person opt to spend thousands on health insurance when they can just pay a $63 a month fine.  They will know that if they get sick they can simply by an insurance plan and not be penalized for having previously opted out of buying health insurance.

Dick Morris explains the impact that this will create:

All Americans will soon find their insurance premiums rising as a result of the bill. The young, uninsured will not buy policies. Why should they? Why not just pay the $750 fines each year? Why pay between 2% and 10% of their household income before subsidies kick in? It makes no financial sense for anyone making more than $30,000 to pay for coverage. (And most of those under that threshold will be covered by Medicaid, not by private insurance).

There is no reason for the young to buy private insurance. The legislation requires that health insurers take all comers and not raise rates based on pre-existing conditions. So the young can get coverage when they need it, having only paid $750 per year beforehand.

The difference in cost will, of course, be borne by families throughout America who will see their health insurance premiums increase. President Obama and his Democratic rubber stamps may appreciate that they are not raising taxes on the middle class, just raising mandatory health insurance premiums, but the distinction is likely to be lost on swing voters.

Reid is counting on this distraction to not only temper the outrage over his payoffs to buy the 60 votes he needed in the Senate, but also to hide the fact that his bill mandates that insurance companies collect a minimum abortion fee of $1 a month from everyone enrolled in insurance plans to go into a pool to pay for abortions.

Even with the Christmas distraction, the more word gets out about the details of Harry Reid’s health care bill, the more backlash is evident in the polls.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air has polls results showing nearly 3/4 of Americans oppose federal funding of abortion:

A new poll by Quinnipiac shows public opinion hardening on ObamaCare as Harry Reid attempts to push it through to its Senate conclusion.  Overall, American voters oppose ObamaCare 53%-36%, but the issue of funding abortion through public funds is even more conclusive.  By a margin of 72%-23%, voters disapprove of using federal funds to provide abortions or abortion coverage.  The controversy hurts Barack Obama’s job-approval numbers, but it’s not the only issue impacting them

Michelle Malkin documents the multiple bribes and purchased votes in Obama and Reid’s health care bill:

A month ago, I compiled Part I of the Demcare bribe list as Harry Reid rushed before Thanksgiving to secure his first cloture vote on the government health care takeover. (Quick re-cap: $300 million Louisiana Purchase for Landrieu; $300 million California doctor payments; AARP goodies; abortion and union lobby concessions.)

1. Sen. Ben Nelson’s “Cornhusker Kickback.” The CBO says the Nebraska Democrat sellout’s special Medicaid expansion subsidy will initially cost an estimated $100 million.

…

1. 2. New England’s Special Syrup. Vermont and Massachusetts will get similar (though less generous) special treatment by the feds in covering Medicaid expansion costs. Combined with Nebraska’s tab, the exclusive clique’s payoffs will cost taxpayers $1.2 billion over 10 years. At least.

Malkin goes on to detail six other payoffs to Senators that are contained in Harry Reid’s health care bill.  These include:

Senator Dodd getting $100 million for construction of a university hospital

Senator Nelson getting a tax exemption for Mutual of Omaha insurance in Nebraska

Bernie Sanders got $10 billion to open government run, community health centers, which Sanders a self proclaimed socialist, calls a first step towards universal health care.

It’s important to remember that this is YOUR money they are playing “let’s make a deal” with.  While it’s true that debate and compromise are an important part of the legislative process, payoffs and intimidation have no place in it.

The President and the Democrats in Congress keep reminding us that health care is 1/6^th of our economy and the country can’t afford to do nothing, but something the American public have clearly told Congress in the Town Hall meetings and in the recent polling data is that we also can’t afford to get this wrong.  Change for the sake of change or to pander to a liberal base, is not acceptable to the majority of Americans.

It’s time to let your Senators and President Obama know that if this bill is in fact signed into law that they will not be re-elected.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air says:

Harry Reid passed his cloture bill a few hours ago, forcing the Senate to remain in session while America slept in order to meet an arbitrary deadline for his version of ObamaCare.  As expected after the reversal of Ben Nelson (D-NE), Reid got his bill past its second procedural hurdle, thanks to some arm-twisting … and vote buying.

What happened to all of the promises of transparency, bi-partisan debate, the end of back-room deals and bills loaded with earmarks, changing the way Washington works — the list goes on.

President Obama campaigned on transparency and stopping earmark laden bills.  He promised the American people that the health care debate would be televised on C-SPAN so that back room deals weren’t cut.  Take a look at this short video:

Shame, that’s what Obama said would be needed to make Congress do the right thing.

That [health care debate televised on C-SPAN] builds in accountability in the system.  Because, now that congressman is put on the spot.  And, I would not underestimate the degree to which shame is a healthy emotion and that you can shame congress into doing the right thing, if people know what’s going on.

“If people know what’s going on.”  First, the Senate bill was worked on behind closed doors, only including Senate Democrats and White House staff.  Then, the President had multiple meetings ONLY with Senate Democrats.  Finally, Harry Reid’s Managers amendment was worked on almost exclusively by Reid’s staff and the White House staff, not even including most Senate Democrats in the process.  “If People know what’s going on” those were the President’s words.

Did you know what was going on?  I certainly didn’t know the details.  My neighbors didn’t.  My co-workers didn’t.  “If people know what’s going on…”

Harry Reid hid the contents of the managers amendment until the last possible moment.  Releasing it on the weekend before Christmas, when most American’s are distracted with the upcoming holiday.  He calls for a vote at 1:00 am, when most people are in bed getting ready for the next day of work.  He leads a gang of 60 to vote 100% along party lines — possibly the first time in history that a major reform was passed 100% along party lines.

President Obama got it partially right.  Shame is clearly a powerful emotion, but rather than forcing Congress to do the right thing, it simply forced Harry Reid to scurry into the shadows, into the dark of night, and hold one of the most important votes in American history in the middle of the night.

The morning after, all that is left to say is shame, shame on you Mr. President for failing to honor your commitment to America.

Mitch McConnell

Mitch McConnell has released a statement following the vote on the health care bill.  He outlines some of the most egregious payoffs that Reid put in the bill to buy votes.

The Gateway Pundit has the statement from Mitch McConnell:

“Tonight marks the culmination of a long national debate. Passions have run high. And, that’s appropriate because the bill we are voting on tonight will impact the life of every American. It will shape the future of our country. It will determine whether our children can afford the nation they inherit.  It is one of the most consequential votes any of us will ever take. And none of us take it lightly.

“But make no mistake: if the people who wrote this bill were proud of it, they wouldn’t be forcing this vote in the dead of night

“Here are just some of the deals we’ve noticed:

“$100 million for an unnamed health care facility at an unnamed university somewhere in the United States — the bill doesn’t say where — and no one will even step forward to claim it.

“ One state out of 50 gets to expand Medicaid at no cost to itself — while taxpayers in the other 49 states pick up the tab.

“The same Senator who cut that deal secured another one that benefits a single insurance company – just one insurance company – based in his state.

“Do the supporters of this bill know all this?  Do they think it’s a fair deal for their states, for the rest of the country?

“The fact is, a year after this debate started few people could have imagined that this is how it would end — with a couple of cheap deals and a rushed vote at one o’clock in the morning.  But that’s where we are.

“And Americans are wondering tonight: How did this happen?

“So I’d like to take a moment to explain to the American people how we got here, to explain what happened — and what’s happening now.

“Everyone in this chamber agrees we need health care reform. The question is how?

“Some of us have taken the view that the American people want us to tackle the cost issue, and we’ve proposed targeted steps to do it.  Our friends on the other side have taken the opposite approach.

“And the result has been just what you’d expect.

“The final product is a mess — and so is the process that’s brought us here to vote on a bill that the American people overwhelmingly oppose.

“Any challenge of this size and scope has always been dealt with on a bipartisan basis.  The senior Senator from Maine made that point at the outset of the debate, and reminded us all how these things have been handled throughout history..

“The Social Security Act of 1935 was approved by all but six members of the Senate.  The Medicare and Medicaid Acts of 1965 were approved by all but 21.  All but eight senators voted for the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

“Americans believe that on issues of this importance, one party should never be allowed to force its will on the other half of the nation.  The proponents of this bill felt differently.

“In a departure from history, Democrat leaders put together a bill so heavy with tax hikes, Medicare cuts and government intrusion, that, in the end their biggest problem wasn’t convincing Republicans to support it, it was convincing the Democrats.

“In the end, the price of passing this bill wasn’t achieving the reforms Americans were promised.

“It was a blind call to make history, even if it was a historical mistake — which is exactly what this bill will be if it’s passed.  Because, in the end, this debate isn’t about differences between two parties, it’s about a $2.3 trillion dollar, 2,733-page health care reform bill that does not reform health care and, in fact, makes its price go up.

Yea, I’ve heard those liberal whoppers as well.

Mary Theroux of The Independent Institute throws some cold water on the lie you’ve been hearing about how private insurance denies coverage, and Medicare is the model program:

According to the American Medical Association’s National Health Insurer Report Card for 2008, the government’s health plan, Medicare, denied medical claims at nearly double the average for private insurers: Medicare denied 6.85% of claims. The highest private insurance denier was Aetna @ 6.8%, followed by Anthem Blue Cross @ 3.44, with an average denial rate of medical claims by private insurers of 3.88%

In its 2009 National Health Insurer Report Card, the AMA reports that Medicare denied only 4% of claims—a big improvement, but outpaced better still by the private insurers. The prior year’s high private denier, Aetna, reduced denials to 1.81%—an astounding 75% improvement—with similar declines by all other private insurers, to average only 2.79%

David Janda of Big Government describes this gift that Obama, Reid and Pelosi are giving us:

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)

You’ve got to love the way Michelle Malkin can sum up a situation in a colorful way.  On the Payoff Harry Reid put into the health care bill to buy Ben Nelson’s vote, she says “Sellout Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) got his Cash-for-Cloture Christmas present early.” Pretty accurate, wouldn’t you say?

Michelle not only has a great grasp of politics, but it’s also enjoyable to watch her interviews and read her columns and books.  It would be even more enjoyable if the stakes weren’t so high.

As I have been documenting on Liberal Whoppers, Malkin talks about the many promises that President Obama, Harry Reid and the other Senators have broken.  Malkin sums it up:

THEY LIE.

Time is of the essence. Here’s the rundown of the next 24 hours:

“Following the remarks of Senator Coburn, the Senate will adjourn until 1:00pm Sunday, December 20. Following the prayer and pledge, the time until 1:30pm will be equally divided and controlled between the two Leaders or their designees. Beginning at 1:30pm and until 11:30pm, there will be alternating blocks of time, with the Republicans controlling the first hour and the Majority controlling the next hour.

At 11:30pm (Sunday), the Senate will recess until 12:01am Monday, December 21. Following the prayer and pledge, the time until 1:00am will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Majority Leader controlling the final 10 minutes and the Republican Leader controlling the 10 minutes immediately prior.

At 1:00AM Monday, December 21, the Senate will proceed to a cloture vote on the Reid-Baucus-Dodd-Harkin amendment #2376.”

It isn’t too late, contact your Senators and let them know that you will not stand for the lies and deceit that Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate are using to pass a health care bill that two thirds of Americans don’t want.

Let’s recount some of the promises that President Obama and Democratic members of Congress have made:

• Obama will reach across party lines and work closely with Republicans on key legislature
• Health care amounts for 1/6 of the US economy and it is crucial to get it right
• The White House will be the most transparent administration in history and will change the way Washington works
• Obama promised that the health care reform would not happen with deals made behind closed doors, but instead the process would be public and televised on C-SPAN
• Obama stated that earmark reform was critical and that he would go line by line through every bill presented to him to insure they aren’t loaded with earmarks

Has ONE single thing that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress said about health care reform been true?  Have they followed through on one promise to the American people about changing how Washington works?

The negotiations have not only been 100% partisan, but have occurred behind closed doors — not televised on C-SPAN as Obama promised.

Not only has President Obama broken his promise and signed into law bills with many thousands  of earmarks, but this new health care bill has blatant payoffs to a handful of Senators that wouldn’t vote for cloture without getting something in return.

The President, along with members of Congress pledged transparency and stated that they would post bills on public websites so that American voters would have time to read and give feedback to their representatives BEFORE they voted on bills.

Doctor Zero of Hot Air summarizes the state of the bill:

Far from being a brilliant plan constructed by top doctors and financial experts in a government brain trust, this health-care bill is a twisted, deformed political document, seen in its entirety by only a few high-ranking politicians belonging to a single political party. Its components have not been precisely crafted as part of a fantastic system calibrated to ensure the maximum access to quality health care for all Americans.

The bill is not being examined with transparency and careful deliberation by representatives who behave as humble servants of the people and their Constitution. Instead, it’s being hastily rammed through in the dead of night, over the objection of powerful majorities of the American people, with desperate last-minute deals cut to acquire the necessary votes, financed by vast sums of taxpayer money. The primary consideration is not crafting the most sophisticated and intelligent health care reform… it’s getting a bill pushed through before angry voters have a chance to blast the Democrats out of Congress. Look at it this way: if the average middle-class American paid about $5000 in federal income tax last year, then you might be one of the 20,000 people who paid for Mary Landrieu’s vote, in the hope of giving Barack Obama a bill to sign as a Christmas present.

Now, in the dark of night, at 1:00 am Monday morning, Harry Reid will summon his 60 Democrats in to vote for cloture in order to end debate, before debate has ever begun.  The vote for cloture is essentially the ‘real’ vote for the health care bill, because they will have no problem getting 51 Democrats for the final vote on Obamacare.

Once again, they are counting on the stupidity of the American public.  They believe that Senators like Blanch Lincoln can get away with carefully worded false statements like, “I didn’t vote for the health care bill, I voted against it. My opponents are trying to confuse you.  The vote they refer to is simply a procedural vote that must take place before the real vote on a bill can take place…”

They are counting on the fact that most Americans are distracted by Christmas.  That many conservative talk show hosts who would normally be screaming about this bastardization of the legislative process are off on their Christmas holidays.

They are counting on the fact that voters in 2010 won’t punish their representatives for what they did in 2009.

In 10 1/2 months, we will see if Obama and friends are right.  Are American voters as stupid as President Obama and the Democrats in Congress think?

Let’s hope not.  Let’s hope that the American voters send Obama and company a message that we counted on our representatives to vote in our best interests, and since they didn’t we will pull a Donald Trump on them and say, “you’re fired!”

There has been a steady decline in support for the health care bill, along with support for President Obama, ever since the Town Hall meetings this summer.  Americans also appear to be growing tired of the back room dealing that Obama and Reid have been guilty of using to try and get a bill passed.

Here is Rasmussen reports latest health care poll:

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters nationwide say that it would be better to pass no health care reform bill this year instead of passing the plan currently being considered by Congress. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 34% think that passing that bill would be better.

Middle-income voters are more likely than others to say that passing no legislation is the better option.

One reason for this is that most Americans now believe they will be worse off if reform passes. Fifty-four percent (54%) hold that view while just 25% believe they would be better off.

Senior citizens are more pessimistic than younger voters. Just 16% of seniors think they’ll be better off if the legislation passes while 59% have the opposite view.

Since President Obama has mandated that it needs to be passed by Christmas, regardless of the contents of the bill, many items on the left wing wish list have been removed, with the public option being number one on that list.  The liberals were counting on a strong public option, which they saw as the first step to a single payer system, or government controlled health care as many call it.

Former DNC chairman Howard Dean has been very vocal in his opposition to the ‘compromise’ health care bill being rushed through the Senate.  Dean said, “We’ve gotten to this stage … in Washington where passing any bill is a victory, and that’s the problem. Decisions are being [made] about the long-term future of this country for short-term political reasons, and that’s never a good sign.”  Dean has gone as far as to say that the bill should be killed and they should start over.

“If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current health care bill,” Dean wrote in an opinion piece published Thursday by The Washington Post. “The winners in this bill are insurance companies; the American taxpayer is about to be fleeced in a situation that dwarfs even what happened at AIG.”

Dean isn’t the only one opposing the bill.  Left wing anchors like Keith Olbermann are very outspoken about Harry Reid’s current bill not being real reform.  In addition to the liberal media, heads of the AFL-CIO and SEIU who were key supporters of President Obama during the election and have been supporters of the health care bill are now being vocal in their opposition.

SEIU president Andy Stern scolded Obama, saying the president should remember his campaign promise to bring change to America. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said the Senate bill “bends toward the insurance industry.”

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is one of the unions that sent out ‘union enforcers’ (read thugs) to make sure that the Town Hall meetings remained civil (meaning intimidate with threats and violence those that oppose the health care bill).

In addition to the former DNC chairman, liberal media and Democratically controlled unions, top liberal bloggers speaking out against Obamacare:

Markos Moulitsas, founder of Daily Kos, wrote on his Twitter feed: “Time to kill this monstrosity coming out of the Senate.” And “Kos” blogged: “You pass a s——-y program now that further bankrupts our nation, and we won’t be talking about ‘fixing’ it in a few years, but whether it should even exist.”

…

Arianna Huffington, founder of The Huffington Post, said on “Morning Joe” that business lobbyists “are winning” on a host of Washington issues, including health reform.

“There is no cost containment here,” she said. “Reconciliation [a Democrats-only strategy requiring only 51 votes] is a very pragmatic alternative.”

Asked if she would enthusiastically support Obama for reelection, Huffington replied: “This is not really the question. … Depends on the alternative. … The American middle class was let down. … Can you really say this White House is on the side of the American people?”

“If you live long enough, all things can happen,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said on the Senate floor. “I now find myself in complete agreement with Dr. Howard Dean, who says that we should stop this bill in its tracks. … Dr. Dean, I am with you.”

In there any wonder why President Obama doesn’t want to let the Senators go home for Christmas without passing Obamacare?  He rightly fears that with the liberal media turning against him and Harry Reid combined with the backlash moderate Senators will receive from their constituents during the Christmas recess, that it will be even harder to pass the bill next year.

Now, a poll asking whether or not voters would be more or less likely to vote for Nelson if he votes for the health care bill sends a very clear messge — vote for the bill, and you won’t be re-elected.

From the Gateway Pundit:

“If Senator Ben Nelson votes in favor of this plan, would that make you more likely or less likely to support Senator Nelson when he runs for re-election?”

More likely: 26%
Less Likely: 61%

Politico has some of the details:

In an interview Thursday with a Nebraska radio station, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said new compromise language on abortion funding is unacceptable.

“As it is right now, without further modifications, it isn’t sufficient,” Nelson told KLIN radio in Lincoln, NE.

This could be a significant blow to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s effort to line up 60 votes in the coming days for the health care bill. Nelson has said he would filibuster the bill unless the abortion language mirrored what was included in the House bill.

Even if abortion is addressed to his satisfaction, “that is not enough” for Nelson commit to voting for the bill, he said.

Last night on Foxnews, when asked if he was going to vote for the bill, he said, “yes,” but didn’t elaborate.  It appears he is still on the fense.

The Omaha World Herald reports:

Calling the federal health care reform proposal “bad news for Nebraska,” Gov. Dave Heineman is urging Sen. Ben Nelson to vote against the bill.

…

The governor said Wednesday that a new analysis by Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services indicates that while state spending on Medicaid, the health care system for the poor, would be less in the first three years after the bill took effect, Nebraska, after six years, would have $45 million in extra expenses.

“America’s health care system needs improvement, but this bill is not the answer,” Heineman said in a letter to Nelson. “You are now the 60th vote, and as Governor of the State that we both represent, I urge you to vote against this bill and against cloture.”

There are reports from multiple Senate sources that Rahm Emanuel told Senate Democrats that the President wants a health care bill passed, and that passage is the only thing that is non-negotiable.  That any and every aspect of the bill, including the public option, can be changed or removed if that’s what it takes to get a bill passed.  Pass it, no matter the cost.

Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and other Democrats in Washington are furious with this approach.  They believe that a small number of rogue Democrats are standing in the way of a once in a lifetime chance to fundamentally change the health care system in this country.

Congressman Weiner said, “Snowe? Stupak? Lieberman?  Who left these people in charge?  It’s time for the President to get his hands dirty.  Some of us have compromised our compromised compromises.”

Speaking on Fox and Friends this morning, Weiner said that President Obama really believes in the public option and he campaigned on the public option, and Weiner believes if Obama had really “put his finger on the scale and said this is what I really want” and really pushed for it, they would get the public option.  Congressman Weiner doesn’t believe that passing something now and fixing it later is a solid approach, as it may be a long time before the Democrats are in position again to implement major reform.  He referred to himself as “angry” over the direction the Senate health care bill is heading.

Newsmax reported on the Democrats coming to grips with the compromise that Obama still calls “the biggest thing since Social Security”:

“The president and vice president pointed out that you take your victories when you can and nothing prevents you from fighting on for the things you believe should have been achieved,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I. “But why spurn a victory in hand?”

“There was frustration and angst,” Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., a leading liberal, said after the meeting at the White House. “Everybody has things they want, and they didn’t all get what they want and that includes me, big-time.”

But Obama got their attention, said Rockefeller, describing a health care remake to cover tens of millions now uninsured as “the biggest thing since Social Security.”

“It’s hard to ignore that,” Rockefeller said.

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., a moderate who had been on the fence, said Tuesday night it’s time to pass the bill.

At the same time that multiple House and Senate Democrats voiced their displeasure with the direction the health care bill — with some stating they wouldn’t vote for it — Senator Harry Reid has laid out an aggressive time line that he says could lead to a vote on Dec 23 or 24th.

It is clear that President Obama does not want the Senators to go back to their states during the Christmas recess and have a repeat of what happened this summer, where angry constituents voiced their displeasure with the proposed health care bills.  The White House watches the polls, and they see that the majority of Americans are against the proposed health care bill and fear that if they don’t get a deal done by Christmas, they might not get one done.

If you haven’t done so, it’s time to contact your Senators and let them know your position on the bill.  They are YOUR representatives, tell them how you feel.

The hope was that Lieberman would give the Democrats the 60 votes they needed to vote for cloture and avoid a Republican filibuster.  It appears that Senator Burris (D-IL)  has other ideas.  Burris believes that any bill without a strong public option is a compromise that he is not willing to accept.

Newsmax reported on the Senator’s comments on Tuesday:

Senator Roland W. Burris, the controversial Democrat of Illinois who filled Barack Obama’s former seat, says he will not vote for a healthcare bill that does not include a government-run insurance plan.

“I am committed to voting for a bill that achieves the goals of a public option: competition, cost savings and accountability,” he said. “I will not be able to vote for lesser legislation that ignores those fundamentals.”

This move by Burris makes Reid’s attempt to win Republican Senator Olympia Snowe’s vote that much more important.  While it appears likely that President Obama will get his vote before Christmas, Harry Reid must feel like he is herding cats, as he makes one compromise after another, one payoff after another, and one threat after another.

Senator Snowe confirmed today that Harry Reid told her that both the expansion of Medicare (lowering to age 55) and the public option are now off the table.  With several Democratic Senators still up in the air on their support for the bill, Reid is trying to get Republicans like Snowe to cross the line.

TPM reports on the meeting between Reid and Snowe:

It wasn’t much in doubt, but Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) confirmed to reporters tonight that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid assured her all of the contentious aspects of the public option compromise–particularly the Medicare buy-in provision–have been dropped.

The two met this afternoon so that Reid could gauge the likelihood that she’ll ultimately vote with the Democrats, at least to push the bill past a filibuster.

He assured you that the Medicare buy-in and the public option are out, I asked?

“Correct,” she said.

Now that Joe Lieberman’s vote is in the bag with the expansion of Medicare being removed from the bill last night, it appears the Senate is prepared to use both a carrot and stick to get Nelson on board — whatever it takes.

Redstate is reporting:

The White House and Democratic Leadership in the Senate has told Senator Nelson they will close every military base in Nebraska — a threat that is not credible, really — but they have also offered Senator Nelson between $300 million to $500 million in earmarks, according to key hill health care operatives. These hundreds of millions will be available for whatever he wants to spend them on in Nebraska.

TPM is reporting that Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) has said that the Medicare option is going to be pulled:

Asked by a reporter if the Medicare buy-in will be pulled out, Harkin said “looks that way,” before praising a Democratic health care bill without the two public option compromises.

“There’s enough good in this bill that even without those two, we gotta move,” he said. “All the insurance reforms, all the stuff we wrote so hard for prevention and wellness in there, the workforce development issues that we have in there, the reimbursement based on quality not on quantity — there’s good stuff in this bill. It’s a giant step forward, changing the paradigm of health care in America.”

UPDATE:  Senator Max Baucus spoke to press after the Democratic caucus meeting and confirmed that the medicare/public option is likely dead.  The Patriot Room reports:

After a tense 90-minute meeting on Monday evening, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Finance Committee, was asked if Democrats were likely to jettison the Medicare proposal.

“It’s looking like that’s the case,” Mr. Baucus said, indicating that the provision might be scrapped as a way of “getting support from 60 senators.”

UPDATE 2:  Here is the Hot Air take on this:

Lieberman said he can (read: will) vote for the bill without the public plan provisions. Reaction, straight off the top of my head: (1) Kind of surprising that neither Snowe nor Collins defected to bail Reid out, eh? Now that he’s back to 60-ish, I wonder if they or Nelson, Bayh, Lincoln, etc. will suddenly ramp up their own demands. (2) The Democrats are so frantic to pass something at this point — e.g., there was a rumor floated earlier today that Emanuel was pressuring Reid to use reconciliation — that Pelosi will almost certainly want to ping-pong the Senate bill. Will the absence of a public option convince Blue Dogs who voted no on the House bill to vote yes this time or will the gruesome polling scare them away? If they do vote yes, are there enough of them to make up for the number of House progressives who will surely vote no this time? (3) Further to the last point, what about the abortion conflict now? The House bill banned abortion funding, the Senate bill allows it. If Bart Stupak and his pro-life Blue Dogs are serious, they can probably kill the whole project. I wonder if Reid will let Nelson reintroduce an abortion funding ban in the Senate and force it through to eliminate that problem. I still don’t see how they’re getting this all done by New Year’s, though.

Over the weekend, the President gave a pep talk to the Senate Democratic caucus on Capital Hill, and now he’s calling them to the White House to take another shot at it.

President Obama is using a full court press to try and get Obamacare passed before the Christmas recess.  He is trying to deal with the fact that some Senators have said they would not vote for a bill that didn’t contain a public option, and others that said they wouldn’t vote for a bill that increases the debt or that doesn’t have a prohibition on the use of federal funds to pay for abortions.

Foxnews reports on the Tuesday afternoon meeting at the White House:

Even an expansion of Medicare, initially proposed as a backup to the government insurance option, appeared unlikely to survive following a closed-door senators-only meeting of the Democratic caucus called to consider trade-offs necessary to assure 60 votes for the bill. Medicare is the government program providing health care benefits to the elderly.

“Put me down tonight as encouraged about the direction these talks are going,” Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, said late Monday, only 24 hours after he rattled Democrats by threatening to oppose the legislation over the Medicare expansion provision.

Obama invited all Senate Democrats to the White House for a meeting Tuesday afternoon that held promise of a unity event. Obama needs every one of them to hang together to give him the 60 votes required to overcome Republicans united in opposition to the sweeping health overhaul measure.

Majority Leader Harry Reid promised to deliver.

“I’m confident that by next week we will be on our way toward final passage of a bill that saves lives, saves money and saves Medicare,” Reid told reporters after Monday night’s meeting.

Liberals had sought the Medicare expansion as a last-minute substitute for a full-blown, government-run insurance program that moderates insisted be removed from the legislation. But it drew strong opposition from Lieberman and quieter concerns from other Democrats — all of whom hold votes essential for passage.

Reid did not say flatly that Democrats had decided to drop the proposal for uninsured Americans as young as 55 to purchase coverage under Medicare, the government program now open to people when they turn 65. But several senators said it appeared inevitable.

“We’re not going to get all that we want but we’re going to get so much more than we have,” liberal Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia said.

If you oppose this health care bill, this may be your last chance to contact your Senator and let him or her know your feelings, as we are likely to see a vote this week.

Yet another liberal whopper.

Valley News had this report, MN among states to cut cancer screenings:

As the economy falters and more people go without health insurance, low-income women in at least 20 states are being turned away or put on long waiting lists for free cancer screenings, according to the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network.

In the unofficial survey of programs for July 2008 through April 2009, the organization found that state budget strains are forcing some programs to reject people who would otherwise qualify for free mammograms and Pap smears. Just how many are turned away isn’t known; in some cases, the women are screened through other programs or referred to different providers. “I cried and I panicked,” said Erin LaBarge, 47. This would have been her third straight year receiving a free mammogram through the screening program in St. Lawrence County. But the Norwood, N.Y., resident was told she couldn’t get her free mammogram this year because there isn’t enough money and she’s not old enough.

New York used to screen women of all ages, but this year the budget crunch has forced them to focus on those considered at highest risk and exclude women under 50. “It’s a scary thought. It really is,” said LaBarge, who fears she’s at a higher risk because her grandmother died of breast cancer.

The Say Anything Blog summarizes the situation very well in their post 20 States Have Now Cut Funding For Mammograms After Government Task Force Recommendations:

Now we can argue about whether or not the taxpayers should be footing the bill for free cancer screenings in the first place (they shouldn’t).  We can argue about whether or not these are prudent cuts from overburdened state budgets (they probably are).  But the point here is that when the government provides you with health care they tend to ration it.  They make decisions for you, and those decisions aren’t usually so much made with your best interests in mind but theirs.

The fact is that this shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.  This is exactly what the Democrats in Washington mean when they talk about bending the cost curve.  When they talk about the large percentage of lifetime medical costs that occur in the last year of life.  The ONLY way you reduce the end of life costs, is to deny treatment or ration treatment.  The way the Democrats plan to ‘bend the cost curve’ is to ration treatments.

This is what is done in other countries.  This year, in a cost cutting measure, the UK’s National Health Service changed their policy on giving steroid injections.  They changed the rules so that only people that had backpain for one year or had a definitive diagnosis, could receive steroid injections.  This despite the fact that doctors said that this change would leave tens of thousands of patients in severe pain, with no remedy available.  Why was this done?  It was a cost cutting measure that was expected to save the UK over $50 million annually.

Welcome to a glimpse into our future.

Politico is reporting that the White House is ordering Reid to cut a deal with Liberman, which could include removing the Medicare expansion from the bill:

The White House is encouraging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to cut a deal with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), which would mean eliminating the proposed Medicare expansion in the health reform bill, according to an official close to the negotiations.

But Reid is described as so frustrated with Lieberman that he is not ready to sacrifice a key element of the health care bill, and first wants to see the Congressional Budget Office cost analysis of the Medicare buy-in. The analysis is expected early this week.

“There is a weariness and a lot of frustration that one person is holding up the will of 59 others,” the official said. “There is still too much anger and confusion at one particular senator’s reversal.”

Further support for this story is that Hot Air is reporting that President Obama has summoned Senate Democrats to the White House and describes why this story is likely true:

If it’s kabuki, why send the bill to CBO to be scored? Reid could simply hold onto it, wait for Lieberman to preemptively shoot it down, and then claim the “ol’ college try” political cover he needs to please the left. By sending it to CBO, he’s taking a risk: Given the crumbling polls and wavering by Blue Dogs like Nelson and Lincoln, if it comes back graded as a budget-buster, centrists may decide that there’s no way to get to 60 and the whole thing could collapse. Don’t forget either that they’re desperate to pass this by Christmas so that public anger will cool a bit over the holidays and The One will have a major accomplishment to stroke in his State of the Union speech. If it drags into January — as one Senate aide tells John Hawkins will certainly happen — those benefits are lost, which leaves Reid with little time now to mess around with kabuki. In fact, according to Politico, if they don’t hold a cloture vote by the end of this week, this thing ain’t happening in December. Besides, if it’s all kabuki, why rely on Lieberman to be a scapegoat “no” vote instead of recruiting your own? Mark Pryor comes from a red state and isn’t up for reelection until 2014; progressives aren’t going to go after him and give up a seat, especially that far into the future.

This appears to be another case of “with the help of the liberal media, we can sell anything to the American voters.”  Reid and leading Democratic Senators really believed that they could sell an expansion of Medicare, a single payer system, to the American voters as a compromise and a better solution than a public option.  In fact, Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) described the ‘compromise’ expansion of medicare as “an unvarnished, complete victory for people like me who have been arguing for a single-payer system.”

While it is a topic too big for this post, anyone that knows people in England or Canada and have heard the first hand stories of their National Health Services, know the many failings of single payer, government run health care system.

Joe Lieberman’s comments on the proposed ‘compromise’:

“Though I don’t know exactly what’s in it, from what I hear, I certainly would have a hard time voting for it because it has some of the same infirmities that the public option did.

“It will add taxpayer costs. It will add to the deficit. It’s unnecessary,” he added of a provision that Reid last week hailed as part of a breakthrough between liberals and moderates.

…

Lieberman pleaded with Democrats to start subtracting expensive proposals from the overhaul, saying, “We don’t need to keep adding onto the back of this horse or we’re going to break the horse’s back and get nothing done.”

Lieberman joins Democrat Claire McCaskill in publicly stating on Sunday an opposition to the current proposal.  Both have indicated that they will not vote for a bill that increases costs, which the Medicare expansion will do.

While details are sketchy, what is being reported is that Medicare would now be opened up to people as young as 55, and this could happen as early as 2011.  For many far-left Democrats, this is being considered a victory, because they know this ‘compromise’ is actually better than the option it is replacing.

Democrat Anthony Weiner said this about the Medicare expansion:

Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., called it “an unvarnished, complete victory for people like me who have been arguing for a single-payer system.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is endorsing the Medicare expansion, “There’s certainly a great deal of appeal.”

While liberal Democrats are enthusiastically embracing expanding the the largest US government controlled health care program, the Mayo clinic came out against an expansion of Medicare:

“We have a lot of concern,” said Jeffrey Korsmo, executive director for the health policy center at the Mayo Clinic, which said it lost $840 million treating Medicare patients last year. He said the change would “push the best providers, hospitals and physicians closer to the brink of financial ruin.”

On the campaign trail, President Obama made this pledge in regards to health care reform:

“I’m going to have all the negotiations around a big table,” Obama said. “We’ll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies — they’ll get a seat at the table, they just won’t be able to buy every chair. But what we’ll 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 drug companies or the insurance companies.”

Like with most liberal whoppers, this was a big one that I am sure a lot of people believed.  The reality of the health care debates have been far different than then candidate Obama promised.

The health care debates have been one of the greatest examples of partisan politics ever seen.  Not only have the democrats voted down hundreds of Republican amendments, they have conducted almost all discussion and debate behind closed doors without allowing any Republican involvment, OR transparency for the American citizens.

You might argue that the President has no control over what Harry Reid does in the Senate.  While that might be partially true, the fact is that there is no evidence that he has tried to encourage Pelosi or Reid to honor his pledge and televise the health care debates, but as further proof of his complicity, on Sunday President Obama attended one of these closed door meetings with the Democratic caucus to rally support for Reid’s bill.

We heard a lot about hope and change, about transparency, we just didn’t realize that the change that would take place would be a total lack of transparency.

It might be time for Reid to take a history class, since the abolition of slavery was the issue that launched the Republican party and Abraham Lincoln is known as the Great Emancipator.

Rather than making nonsensical historical comparisons, Reid might consider actually working on a bi-partisan solution to the health-care problems.

In an attempt to cover her gaff, Pelosi’s office later put out a written statement stating the right is within the oft used catch-all “Regulate Commerce” clause.

CNSNews.com asked Senator Ben Nelso (D-Neb.) “Specifically, where in the Constitution does Congress get its authority to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance?” and his response: “well, you know, I don’t know that I’m a constitutional scholar,” said Nelson. So, I, I’m not going to be able to answer that question.”

This is very reminicsent of President Obama stating that ‘empathy’ would be a key in choosing a Supreme Court Justice, because he felt the “quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes” was as important as interpreting the law and constitution.

If Supreme Court Justices should consider people’s hopes and struggles when interpreting constitutional law, why shouldn’t Speaker Pelosi disregard the Constitution when drafting legislation?  After all, she will have empathetic Justices to focus not on the true constitutionality, but instead whether it makes people ‘feel good’.

“If a family care physician works with his or her patient, to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they’re taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance.”

“But, if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that’s $30,000, $40-50,000 immediately the surgeon is reimbursed.”

This is yet another Whopper in the long line of Whoppers intended to scare people.  Just like when he claimed that the pediatrition will remove your kids tonsils, rather than sending them for an allergy test, because they make more money removing the tonsils.

The fact is that a surgeon does NOT make $30,000-$50,000 for amputating a foot, but instead make something on the order of $500-$2000.  This wasn’t simply a “oops, I meant the total cost could be $50,000″, since he also clearly stated “immediately the surgeon is reimbursed.

When the truth isn’t enough, tell a Whopper!!