The recent bump in the unemployment rate to 9.6%, when we were supposed to see economic recovery during the summer of recovery, lends some credence to Morris’ concerns:

Why is unemployment remaining so high? Because the totality of Obama’s policies are dragging us into a depression.

• The prospect of dramatically higher taxes next year is freezing consumer spending, particularly in the upper income ranges which spend a third of America’s consumption.

• The huge changes that are looming in medical care brought about by Obama’s health care legislation are freezing new employment and expansion in the medical sector which accounts for 16% of GDP.

• The financial reform legislation has so raised the prospect of a federal takeover of any bank that makes “imprudent” loans that financial institutions are afraid to lend, freezing new job creation.

• The looming possibility of cap-and-tax legislation in the name of halting climate change is freezing any expansion in the manufacturing and energy sectors since these policies will force jobs to move overseas to locations that do not impose such a tax (e.g. India and China).

• The massive expansion in the deficit and in the resulting debt has so eroded confidence in our nation’s future that Americans are now saving 6% of their income, up from 1% in the past, sapping consumer spending.

• The threat of new rules for union elections that will spread private sector unionization is freezing business expansion plans.

President Obama is so focused on remaking America in the mold of Western Europe, that he appears blinded to the damage that he’s doing.  While his election was clearly a vote against Republicans following unhappiness with some of the Bush policies, President Obama and his administration viewed the election as a mandate for their liberal agenda.   This belief in a far-left mandate has allowed him to ignore the clear will of the people as reflected in polls, Town Hall meetings, and other events and just plow ahead with his far-left, liberal agenda — regardless of the cost to America.

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?

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.”

Now it would seem that a Senator, probably with ties to large construction companies or construction worker’s unions, had Reid add a last minute amendment that will hit small construction companies hard:

The Senate bill has a provision requiring businesses with over 50 employees to pay a fine of $750-per-worker fine for any employee who purchases subsidized health insurance on their own. However, the provision was amended to require construction businesses with more than five employees to pay the same fine.

The construction industry says that in these lean financial times the provision will result in many of them being forced out of business.

The amendment was inserted Wednesday morning in order to garner the necessary 60 votes to pass the bill.

Construction firms are crying foul over the provision that treats them differently from every other business with fewer than 50 employees.

It’s hard to find a realistic rationale for treating small construction companies differently than other small companies.

Like with the $100 million for a mystery hospital, it isn’t clear what Senator was bought off with this last minute change to Reid’s health care bill, but it clearly was a favor to someone, whether a Senator or union.

The National Association of Homebuilders says that if this legislation is enacted, it could bankrupt thousands of small builders that are barely hanging on after the housing market collapse.

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.

Apparently the backlash over the Senate payoffs hasn’t persuaded Nancy Pelosi from taking the same route to buy passage of the Senate bill when it comes to the House. In fact, it seems that Reid’s success in buying 60 Senate votes has emboldened Pelosi.

The wheeling and dealing has already begun in the House.  Nancy Pelosi is following the Reid Plan to buy the necessary votes to pass Obamacare.  They are targeting Bart Stupak (D-MI), because he has stated that he will not vote for the Senate’s version of the health care bill, because it uses public funds to pay for abortions.

The National Review has Stupak’s comments as he cries foul over the hush money and payoffs:

Stupak tells us that he’s disappointed that Democratic leaders have offered him legislative favors in exchange for supporting Obamacare. “This shouldn’t be a bill where you use hush money,” says Stupak. “This isn’t an appropriations bill where you try to get the best projects for your state.”

“In the House, we need to bring equity back into the process,” says Stupak. “We need to cut out those sweetheart deals.” If the deals in question are not removed, Stupak will vote against the bill. In the meantime, he says, “my reservations are growing.”

“I’ve spoken with a half-dozen members in the last 48 hours and they’re all really concerned with the Senate bill,” says Stupak. “We all agree: We’ve lost our objective with health care. Where you live should have nothing to do with the quality or cost of your coverage.”

However, for those that feel that the Stupak dozen voting no on the health care bill will prevent it from becoming law, not so fast.  ALLAHPUNDIT of Hot Air tells us that the removal of the public option will result in some moderates that voted no on the house bill, now voting yes to the Senate bill:

Here’s audio of him telling CNS that he has 10 to 12 people prepared to vote no; he told NRO earlier that it was actually more like a half-dozen. He’s pretty much boxed himself into a no vote at this point — although, remember, even Stupak’s been squirrelly about just how committed to the pro-life cause he is — but Pelosi’s got a long, long list of Blue Dogs she can use to replace him and any other defectors. Do note that Jason Altmire’s on it — the same guy who told Fox Business last night that there are “a lot” of Blue Dogs who voted no last time who are ready to flip for a bill without a public option. Game over.

While there is still the potential of the bill being ping-ponged in committee, the fact is that passage of this bill is simply too important to the President and Democratic leadership to allow it not to pass.  Rest assured that they will twist arms and cut whatever deals are necessary to make sure a health care bill passes.   At this point, it matters less to them ‘what’ health care bill passes, just that ‘a’ health care bill passes.

The gang of three, Obama, Pelosi and Reid, know that they need to put this health care bill to bed as soon as possible, so they can have time to spin it before the 2010 mid-term elections.  They know that anger Americans have now against the President and the Democratic Congress would mean a landslide for the Republicans if the elections were held today.  They cannot afford to have a long drawn out process of merging the House and Senate bills.

As the PUNDIT says, “game over”, but that doesn’t mean that you should stop calling your Congressmen and Senators and telling them whether you approve or disapprove of this bill, and what its passage will mean in terms of your vote in 2010.

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

While Harry Reid and Ben Nelson have tried to sell us on the notion that no federal funds will be used to pay for abortions, the reality is that they have lied.  Or, at the very minimum, chosen words very carefully to hide the truth.

Instead, they are playing accounting tricks.  Instead of using ‘federal funds’ to pay for abortion, President Obama and Reid’s bill mandates that plan administrators must charge every person enrolled in a health care plan, in order to fund abortions for other people.  Representative John Boehner explains:

Under Reid’s “manager’s amendment,” there is no prohibition on abortion coverage in federally subsidized plans participating in the Exchange.  Instead the amendment includes layers of accounting gimmicks that demand that plans participating in the Exchange or the new government-run plan that will be managed by the Office of Personnel Management must establish “allocation accounts” when elective abortion is a covered benefit (p. 41).  Everyone enrolled in these plans must pay a monthly abortion premium (p. 41, lines 5-8), and these funds will be used to pay for the elective abortion services.  The Reid amendment directs insurance companies to assess the cost of elective abortion coverage (p. 43), and charge a minimum of $1 per enrollee per month (p. 43, lines 20-22).

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air details how HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius praises the public funded abortion mandate:

What constitutes the notion of “public funds”? If the government forces us to pay into a fund, and then controls the distribution of those funds, are those funds not “public”? Morgen at Verum Serum catches a portion of an interview between HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and BlogHer interviewer Morra Aarons-Mele yesterday, in which Sebelius praises the abortion-funding language in the Reid bill, as it maintains a flow of funds for abortion coverage that everyone — and she means everyone — supplies

Obama, Reid and company are using carefully worded public statements and accounting tricks to try and fool people into believing that the abortion ‘compromise’ is a real compromise.  In fact, all they have done is switched from using federal tax dollars to fund abortions to mandating that everyone pays at least $1 into an abortion fund.

Apparently pro-choice doesn’t extend to giving us the choice whether or not we want to fund other people’s abortions.

Graham was asked if there is a legal problem with Ben Nelson’s deal:

Legally, I think other states can make a constitutional challenge.  Let’s let our viewers know what we are talking about here. They needed 60 votes, Ben Nelson was a hold out and instead of negotiating on C-SPAN and bringing about transparency that was promised in 2008, we wind up getting one Senator in a room where no one else knows what’s going on other than Reid and Ben Nelson and it goes sort of like this:

Reid: What do you need Ben for this last vote? I tell you what, Medicaid is expanding under this bill for everyone in the country, it’s a billion dollar increase for the people of South Carolina, what would happen if we let Nebraska increase their Medicaid enrollment and the federal government paid for it?

Nelson:  Done

I think that’s incredibly inappropriate, that’s not change we can believe in, it’s the worst in politics and this bill has no Republican support for one reason.  If it becomes law, almost 80% of the people in the country will be under some form of government health care.

Senator Graham was asked if bribery was what politics is all about? If he had ever excepted a sweetener deal for his state?

I try and advocate for the state of South Carolina, but I also try and make sure my country is doing ok too. My country means more to me than anything else when it comes to being a Senator from South Carolina. It’s not fair to my country to do this to my fellow citizens.  It’s not fair to raise $518 billion in new taxes when we are in the middle of a recession.  It’s not fair to cut Medicare by $470 billion and start a new government program.  It’s not fair to squeeze out private health care. It’s not fair to give a deal to the people of Nebraska to get one Senator’s vote and not share that deal with the rest of the country.   That’s not good politics.  That’s not normal politics.

Graham was asked again if bribery is the way things work on Capitol Hill:

In my view, no.  It’s not the way. I don’t think most Senators, believe this is ok.  If it is, just say so.  I’m on your show.  I think it stinks.  I think it’s sleazy.  Now, if you disagree with me.  You think it’s good politics, come on some show and say it’s ok with you.  Go back to your state and tell the people in your state that our Medicaid bills are going to go up, your taxes are going to go up, but we had to do this to get Nebraska on board.  Is that ok with you?  Do you think that’s fair?  I hope they get laughed out of the room.

The Senator was asked if he had ever seen anything of this scope jammed through with such a “win at any cost” approach:

Absolutely not.  Medicare passed with 79 votes.  Social Security passed with 94 votes.  The Americans with disabilities act passed with over 90 votes.  I’ve never seen, in my time in politics, an effort by one party to jam the other party and change 1/6th of the economy and not be able to get one Republican on board.  I will put my bi-partisan credentials up against anyone.  I’ve been in the gang of 14.  I worked on immigration.  I voted for Sotomayor.  They have not reached out to any Republican in a meaningful way, because at the end of the day their goal is to get more people covered by the government.  We go from 60% of Americans in government run health care to 80% of Americans in government run health care, and no Republican is going to vote for that, including Lindsey Graham or Olympia Snowe.

We’re up here to run a country and we’re up here to help people.  I want to expand coverage.  I want to do away with preexisting illness exclusions. I don’t want to run up the debt that’s beyond the ability for the next generation to pay.  I don’t want to become Europe when it comes to health care.  And, it’s frustrating to have an amendment filed on Saturday, 400 pages, and the tree be filled so that we could not amend the amendment.  It’s frustrating to have a 2,500 page bill jammed through the Senate the day before Christmas and be shut out of the process.  This is not going to help this country solve health care, and if you have private health care today, your premiums are going to go up, and you’re going to be crowded out of the marketplace and will eventually be in a government run health care plan.

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.

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)

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!”

Harry Reid and President Obama are trying to use sleight of hand and cries of urgency to perpetrate a fraud on the citizens of the United States of America, again.

Earlier in the month, in yet another free commercial for the President, also known as a Charlie Gibson interview, President Obama stated that if we didn’t pass the health care bill the federal government “will go bankrupt.”  It’s an emergency, we don’t have time to let the Senators read the bill!  Where have we heard this before?

In June Obama and Pelosi rushed through their cap and trade bill.  No congressman was given time to read the managers amendment (like with Harry Reid’s health care bill, it was the meat of the bill), before being forced to vote on it.

In February, Obama and Pelosi brought the stimulus bill to the floor for an emergency vote.  It had to be passed without anyone having time to read it, because it would ensure the unemployment rate wouldn’t reach double digits and it would prevent an economic collapse.  It’s ironic that it took roughly six months to dole out the first 10% of the ‘emergency’ stimulus bill, which contained roughly 5,000 earmarks — mostly in Democratic districts.  When pushing the ‘emergency nature’ of the stimulus bill, President Obama stated “if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits.”  Have you checked the unemployment rate lately, Mr. President?

Now, back to Reid and Obama’s health care bill.

Harry Reid is at best being disingenuous and at worse he is lying through his teeth.  He claims that this bill will reduce the deficit, but that is only because of sleight of hand.  The bill has ten years of tax increases (revenue), but only 6 years of costs.   It’s amazing that he can’t show an even bigger reduction in the deficit than $132 billion.  With four extra years of increased taxes and cuts to Medicare, before the spending begins, he can only show a reduction of $132 billion.  It’s scary to think about what the real cost would be if he didn’t apply his ten years of revenue and six years of cost trick (rumor has it Reid sought advice from Michael Mann and Phil Jones about how to manipulate data).

The Weekly Standard has published the numbers that Harry Reid doesn’t want you to see.  They have created an apples to apples cost breakdown, looking at the first ten years where both the tax increases and cost increases are in effect:

The Democrats are irresponsibly and disingenuously claiming that the bill would cost $871 billion over 10 years. But that’s not what the CBO says. Rather, the CBO says that $871 billion would be the costs from 2010 to 2019 for expansions in insurance coverage alone. But less than 2 percent of those “10-year costs” would kick in before the fifth year of that span. In its real first 10 years (2014 to 2023), the CBO says that the bill would cost $1.8 trillion — for insurance coverage expansions alone. Other parts of the bill would cost approximately $700 billion more, bringing the bill’s full 10-year tab to approximately $2.5 trillion — according to the CBO.

In those real first 10 years (2014 to 2023), Americans would have to pay over $1 trillion in additional taxes, over $1 trillion would be siphoned out of Medicare (over $200 billion out of Medicare Advantage alone) and spent on Obamacare, and deficits would rise by over $200 billion. They would rise, that is, unless Congress follows through on the bill’s pledge to cut doctors’ payments under Medicare by 21 percent next year and never raise them back up — which would reduce doctors’ enthusiasm for seeing Medicare patients dramatically.

And what would Americans get in return for this staggering sum? Well, the CBO says that health care premiums would rise, and the Chief Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says that the percentage of the Gross Domestic Product spent on health care would rise from 17 percent today to 21 percent by the end of 2019. Nationwide health care costs would be $234 billion higher than under current law. How’s that for “reform”?

So, the bill does not cost $871 billion like Harry Reid claims, but $2.5 trillion, yes that is trillion with a “T”, in the first REAL ten years that the health care bill is in effect.

Now, some of the ‘cost savings’ they tout as ‘bending the cost curve’ is to cut Medicare payouts to doctors by 21%.  The Mayo Clinic, which President Obama referred to as ‘the model for health care reform’, has said that expanding Medicare will accelerate the financial ruin of hospitals and doctors.  Now, Reid proposes that in order to ‘bend the cost curve’ they will simply pay doctors and hospitals less:

Expanding this system to persons 55 to 64 years old would ultimately hurt patients by accelerating the financial ruin of hospitals and doctors across the country. A majority of Medicare providers currently suffer great financial loss under the program. Mayo Clinic alone lost $840 million last year under Medicare. As a result of these types of losses, a growing number of providers have begun to limit the number of Medicare patients in their practices.  Despite these provider losses, Medicare has not curbed overall spending, especially after adjusting for benefits covered and the cost shift from Medicare to private insurance.  This is clearly an unsustainable model, and one that would be disastrous for our nation’s hospitals, doctors and eventually our patients if expanded to even more beneficiaries.

The Price is Right!

Not only has Harry Reid deceived the American people about the true costs of his ‘health care reform’, but he has included what can only be called ‘payoffs’ or ‘bribes’ for the Senators that balked about voting for cloture.  Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) was given $300 million of Medicaid subsidies, in order to secure her vote.  Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) both got tax exemptions (new tax on insurers) for Blue Cross and Mutual of Omaha located in Nebraska, but Reid also wrote into the bill that Nebraska would NEVER have to pay any increase in Medicaid costs.  The other 49 states will see a sharp increase in their Medicaid costs after the federal matching funds stop in 2017, but Nebraska will be subsidized forever by increasing the taxes on the other 49 states to cover Nelson’s payoff.  Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont threatened to vote against cloture, because the public option was pulled, so Reid threw Vermont additional Medicaid matching funds to buy Sanders’ cooperation.

Is there any wonder that Reid and Obama are pushing for votes in the middle of the night and to pass this bill during Christmas week, when most Americans are distracted  and with many conservative talk show hosts taking time off for Christmas.  President Obama and Harry Reid are counting on the fact that the bill will be passed before most people understand what it contains.

It’s time to rename our fine country the United States of Chicago, because Chicago-style politics have taken hold and are becoming the norm in Washington.

The health care task force has put together a page with contact information (twitter, facebook, email, phone) for seven key senators in Harry Reid’s attempt to rush his health care bill through before anyone has had time to read it.

If they vote for cloture without reading it, like Reid wants, then debate will be over and they will only need 51 votes to pass the bill.

The Senators listed on the contact page are: Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Michael Bennet, Byron Dorgan, Evan Bayh, Arlen Specter or Jim Webb.

Let those Senators know what you think.

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.

The Examiner reports Reid’s shenanigans:

Senate Democrats are threatening Republicans with midnight and crack-of-dawn votes if they continue to fight the majority on the health-care bill and defense spending legislation.

The Senate Democratic leadership office is advising lawmakers, staff and reporters that if the GOP does not yield back time on the defense spending bill now under consideration, a vote will be scheduled for Friday morning at 1 a.m., with final passage slated for 7 a.m. Saturday morning.

…

“No one besides Harry Reid has even seen the bill,” DeMint spokesman Wesley Denton said. “If Democrats won’t read their own bill, they’ll be forced to have every page read to them on the Senate floor. Americans have rejected this government takeover of health care, and Republicans will do whatever is possible to stop them from ramming this through before Christmas.”

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.

In recent weeks, polls have shown large approval rating drops among Democratic voters; that he has lost the support of most independents and middle-class voters; that two ‘large turnout’ groups (young voters and African American voters) from the 2008 elections that helped put him in office have become disenfranchised and have indicated most will not vote in 2010 and possibly 2012; multiple polls show President Obama’s approval rating in the mid 40′s and not only his lowest, but the lowest of any president at this point in a Presidential term; and,  a poll released yesterday showing that only 32% of Americans feel that Obama’s health care plan is a ‘good idea’.

Every day, it seems a new body blow is delivered in terms of backlash from American voters to the Obama administration.

Now, a Gallup poll shows that 64% of Americans oppose the closing of Guantanamo Bay and moving the terrorists to US soil:

Americans remain opposed to closing the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba and moving some of the terrorist suspects being held there to U.S. prisons: 30% favor such actions, while 64% do not. These attitudes could present a significant roadblock for President Obama at a time when he seeks congressional approval to move terrorist suspects from Guantanamo to a converted state prison in northwestern Illinois

Bruce McQuain from QandO has this take on this newest poll:

I think perhaps the promise to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba – a supposed symbol of American shame – and the subsequent inability to do so is symbolic of how inept, to this point, this administration has been.  President Obama, while a candidate, had a guaranteed applause line each time he promised to close the facility.  The left had so thoroughly demonized it that it was prime red-meat for every campaign rally.  And, in fact, Obama signed an executive order on his first day in office ordering it closed.

And here we are, a year later, with the facility still open and the administration still dithering about what to do with the inmates.  In the meantime, the American public has come to realize that it is the inmates that are the problem, not where the inmates are incarcerated.  Closing Gitmo doesn’t solve a thing.   In fact, the public realizes, it forces some very unappetizing choices – like housing those we deem to dangerous to our country to release not in some isolated prison on a island far away, but in the heartland of America.

All of the recent polls and public backlash lead us to this question:  Is President Obama and the Democrats in Congress that out of touch with America, or do they realize and except that what they are doing is a ‘suicide mission’?

Here’s a taste of the polling data from Hotair.com:

They [Democratic health-care bill] never cracked 40 percent and now they’re so far gone that it’s essentially become a suicide mission. In fact, for the second day in a row, the only real bright spot on health care is the number that would have supported the now-dead Medicare buy-in. 58 percent say thumbs up, 32 percent say thumbs down. Let me know if and when someone dares to poll that question while listing potential adverse consequences or trade-offs.

As for the tea-party numbers, we already knew they were more popular than the GOP, but now, thanks to O-Care, they’ve lapped the Democrats too. Ironclad proof of a surge in fiscally conservative populism across the nation? Sure, to some extent. But this helps explain it too.

Head over to Hot Air to read the rest of the commentary and view the charts.

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.

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.

In his interview with Oprah Winfrey on ABC’s Christmas special, President Obama said:

Obama said the only thing that stands in the way of giving himself a better grade is the fact that some elements of his agenda — health care reform and putting more Americans to work — remain undone.

“The biggest burden on me right now is that economic growth has happened, but job growth has not happened,” Obama told Winfrey on the ABC special.

On the plus side, Obama said, “We are on our way out of Iraq.” And, he added, “I think we’ve got the best possible plan for Afghanistan.”

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!!