How could anyone (besides everyone) have known?

The Congressional Budget Office came out with new estimates on the cost of Obamacare, and it turns out that it will cost almost twice as much as Obama said when Democrats forced through passed their “healthcare” legislation. 

From the Washington Examiner report: "President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law."


Edit: The CBO also estimates two million fewer people will be insured than were first claimed. Revenues from penalties paid by individuals and employers will also be greater than claimed. And despite claims that Obamacare was not a takeover of the insurance industry, by 2022 three million fewer people will have insurance through their employers, 17 million more Americans will be on Medicaid, and 22 million more will get coverage through the government's "insurance exchanges."   

Another Obamacare Revelation

Congressman Tim Huelskamp of Kansas has written an Op-Ed in the Washington Examiner detailing a proposed rule request by HHS.  This rule would require insurers and healthcare providers to hand over patient information to the government.  The rule request is listed in the Federal Register. The pertinent section of this mind-numbing piece of literature is section 153.340, "Data collection under risk management."

Hmmm....I wonder what the government could do with everyone's individual medical records?  Maybe ration care?  Maybe determine who is healthy enough to approve medical treatment for, and who is not?

Nancy Pelosi said they had to pass Obamacare so we could find out what was in it.  Now we know.

What's this "compromise" thing?

Recently the news stories covering the debt ceiling situation in Washington have zeroed in on Republican freshmen in the House of Representatives.  Many of them were elected with Tea Party support, with a mandate to reduce the size of government and its role in our lives.  Taxation being a major part of that philosophy, the Tea Party has influenced negotiations.  To wit – no new taxes.

This “ideological rigidity” (as Obama characterized it) has been accused of being the major reason no deal can be reached.  Words such as compromise, bipartisanship, and a “balanced approach” (definition: more taxes) are seen as necessary so that the U.S. government, its reputation, and the world economy don’t come crashing down.  Republicans must agree to increased revenue (definition: more taxes.)  

The current debt is (supposedly) capped at $14.2 trillion. 

In January of 2009, two days after Obama had been sworn into office, in response to a Republican Senator’s objection to increased taxes in the upcoming stimulus plan, Obama killed all dissenting voices by responding, “I won.”

In February of 2009, Obama signed the Democrat stimulus bill into law. The bill was written by Democrat leaders and their staffs, behind closed doors, with no Republican input at all.  The actual legislation was posted on the Congressional website late the night before the vote was scheduled.  The vote was taken before the wording was finalized – additional points were handwritten on the pages – meaning that no one knew what was actually in the legislation when they voted on it, because no one could have read it.  Contribution of the Democrat stimulus bill to the federal debt:  $1.2 trillion.

In December of 2009, the Democrat Congress passed Obamacare, again without any Republican input.  Again, the legislation was crafted by Democrat leaders behind closed doors.  Contribution of Obamacare to the federal debt:  Over $2 trillion.

Transition to today.  Everyone is up in arms because America’s credit rating is about to be downgraded, Social Security checks are threatened, and the nation’s financial status is about to be destroyed – all because (if you read the papers) Tea Party-influenced Republicans refuse to be “fiscally responsible” and compromise on a bipartisan balanced approach.

Interesting O-care waiver facts

The most recent count on "waivers" from Obamacare is 1,372.  That is, 1,372 businesses, state and local governments, labor unions and insurers have been exempted by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius from the requirements mandated by Obamacare for at least one year.

These 1,372 entities cover 3,095,593 individuals.  More than half of those individuals are in plans issued by labor unions, the Democrat party’s biggest political ally.   Union members make up just 12 percent of all employees but have received 50.3 percent of Obamacare waivers. 

Recently, Obama’s HHS Secretary granted 38 waivers to higher-end restaurants, nightclubs, spas and hotels in former Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco congressional district. 

Apparently, in Obama’s administration how much you suffer under the federal government’s mandates depends on who you know.

Obamacare keeps getting better and better

Headline:  "CBO Director says Obamacare would reduce employment by 800,000 workers"


It's a shame we couldn't have had that info before the Democrats forced the legislation through.

A quick break for me - State of the Union response

A break from doing the writing that I get paid to do, that is.


Barack Obama is to give his State of the Union speech tonight.  The Republican response will be delivered by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.  I've heard of Ryan, but had never really paid enough attention to see him in action.  Boy, was I surprised.


Here is Ryan at the "bipartisan summit" on healthcare legislation last year.  He surgically vivisects all the tricks and gimmicks in the Democrat plan.  It didn't affect the outcome of the vote, but boy did he do a good job.

A list of scheduled tax increases to pay for Obamacare

According to Ryan Ellis of Americans for Tax Reform, about two dozen new or increased taxes.  Read the "Comprehensive List of Tax Hikes in Obamacare."

"The federal government can do most anything in this country"

Two points: First, California Democrat Congressman Pete Stark represents the dominant attitude in Washington.  Second, I hope I would have the courage and ability to ask such a skillfully-phrased question if I had the chance. 

And so it begins....

Headline: "Insurance regulators miss early deadline on premium spending rules"
.
"Implementing a controversial provision of the new health-care law [a/k/a "Obamacare" - kw] is proving harder than planned. A national assembly of state insurance regulators, which is helping the federal government translate the law into more specific rules, said it was unable to meet a Tuesday deadline for standards meant to ensure that consumers get value for their premium dollars."

.
Headline: " Running late on the EARLY act"
.
"Although it’s racing to roll out consumer-friendly aspects of the health care law before November’s midterm elections, the Obama administration has just missed the deadlines to set up task forces on breast cancer and health care in Alaska."

.
Let's discuss again how effectively the federal government will run the healthcare system.

Tough Interview for Obama

Barack Obama finally faced a tough interview (from Fox News, of course.)  He didn't come out looking very good.  His comment that the deal with Louisiana would help Hawaii because of the earthquake Hawaii had (????) was especially interesting.  Notice the way he avoided answering as much as he could, and how he tried to give extemely long answers to limit and diffuse questions.

Confusing News on Obamacare

Two stories hit today with different spins on the "reconciliation" maneuver Democrats hoped to use on their healthcare legislation.

Roll Call, the official newspaper for Congress, reports that the Senate Parliamentarian has ruled Obama must sign existing legislation before any reconciliation process can begin.  This eliminates the possibilty that the House could vote to accept the Senate version prior to it receiving Obama's signature.

Almost simultaneously, Harry Reid sent a letter to Republicans that he intends to move forward with the reconciliation process.  Since reconciliation is designated only for use on budget-conforming items, apparently the move is to make the motion only on a few thrown-in parts of the legislation which -- using imagination -- can be construed as budget-related.

Of course, voting for the reconciliation would in effect be voting for the healthcare legislation, regardless of Reid's claims in his letter.  House Democrats, who are much more nervous about their seats in Congress and the upcoming November elections, are given a bit of an "out."  They can claim that they didn't vote for the whole thing, but only for those few tchotchkes the Democrat leadership tossed in as a diversion.

Let's hope that Republicans can keep the pressure on House Democrats.  Such sweeping, invasive seizing of power by the federal government should not be approved by a narrow majority of politicians against the will of the American people.

Democrats: They don't even trust each other....

According to recent news reports, Barack Obama is pushing for the parliamentary trick I mentioned earlier to get some sort of healthcare legislation passed.  Reconciliation means a series of maneuvers would have to happen between the Senate and the House.

One point is this: the House would have to pass the Senate version of the legislation, which is very different from the House version, then trust the Senate to pass legislative "fixes" to adapt the law to fit the House version.  Interestingly, the House Democrats do not trust Senate Democrats and Obama to fulfill their part of the bargain, despite assruances from top Democrat Senators.

The lack of trust between the chambers of Congress is telling.  If they don't even trust each other, then why in the world should ordinary Americans trust any of them?

Kamikaze Democrats?

Andrew C McCarthy has written a column that proposes a very scary scenario; to wit, that Congressional Democrat leaders are willing to sacrifice their majorities in the House and Senate so as to get their healthcare legislation passed before November. The thinking is that, once they have rammed through sweeping control over Americans via nationalized healthcare, the machinery will be in place, and the government will have unsurpassed power even when Democrats are not in power.

Democrats know that anyone who votes for the legislation will likely face tremendous blowback from voters come election time. The Democrat leadership (Obama, Pelosi, Reid) are willing to accept such self-destructive losses to accomplish their bigger goal of transforming America.

This strategy only works if Republicans don't have the guts to repeal healthcare legislation once they are in office. This question needs to be asked of every candidate who runs in November:

"If elected, will you vote to repeal Democrat healthcare legislation?"

The Healthcare Summit

Today, in the spirit of bipartisanship (meaning they're going to get their clocks cleaned in November,) Democrat congressional leaders and Barack Obama invited Republicans to a "summit" so they could discuss healthcare legislation in front of the cameras. The question is, why?

The Democrat-controlled House passed healthcare legislation. The Democrat-controlled Senate passed healthcare legislation. All Democrats need to do is settle on which version they want, then send it for a vote in their Democrat-controlled Congress. Republicans can not stop it.

.

Democrats are inept at almost everything they do. However, one thing that they are good at is reading polls. The American public does not want the federal government controlling healthcare, and by extension every other aspect of their lives. (Example: Obesity causes healthcare problems? The government can regulate how many calories you're allowed. That's government healthcare.)

.

So with the fear of being tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail, Democrats hope to muddle the perception by implying that Republicans at least partially responsible for the healthcare debacle called Obamacare. Obama arranges a summit cum photo op to show that Republicans are as bad as Democrats. All we can hope is that Republicans avoid getting splashed on.

Who Are You Gonna Trust?

You won't be able to keep your current insurance.
The government will tell your doctor how to treat you.

Remember how the Democrats ridiculed critics of their healthcare legislation for making such claims? Finally Obama admits that those points were, after all, accurate. Do you think you can believe anything Democrats say any more?

A Question About Healthcare Legislation

I don't take credit for this one, I heard it from someone else.

"If the purpose of healthcare legislation is to insure those who are currently without insurance, why do we need a trillion dollar, 2,000 page bill, that leaves 24 million Americans still uninsured?"

How to Purchase a Country

The Democrat-dominated Senate passed its version of healthcare legislation over this last weekend, with Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska providing the 60th "yes" vote. An Associated Press story provides samples of earmarks ("pork") Senators were given for their votes:

* Nelson was able to exempt Nebraska from having to bear any of the added Medicaid expenses the legislation imposes on states. (This maneuver keeps the federal cost of the legislation down by passing it on to the states. Taxpayers still foot the bill.) This means that all taxpayers pay for Nelson's vote. Vermont (represented by Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy and Independent Bernie Sanders) and Massachusetts (represented by Democrats John Kerry and Paul G. Kirk,) received similar special "aid" from the legislation.

* Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana,) chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, had language inserted that provided 2,900 citizens of a small Montana town "special" access to Medicare.

* Senator Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) negotiated $100 million in extra aid to Louisiana in exchange for her vote.

* Senator Bill Nelson (D-Florida) tailored a special provision that grandfathered in hundreds of thousands of Florida seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage who would have otherwise lost coverage.

* Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Connecticutt) engineered $100 million for a hospital that's being built by the University of Connecticutt.

Other Democrat special interest groups received special consideration.

As Otto von Bismarck said, "Laws are like sausages. It is better not to see them being made." Fifty-eight Democrats and two Independents sold the American healthcare system -- and the lives of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren -- for the political equivalent of a blue-light special.

Healthcare and the States

A quick update to my post on November 24 regarding Democrat healthcare reform legislation. According to the latest column.by Dick Morris, the extra cost that will be incurred by Texans -- read "higher taxes required so that Democrat can claim a lower cost for their legislation" -- is estimated to be $2.8 billion. Don't fool yourself into believing that a state income tax is not on the horizon if this happens.

How does it feel knowing that we Texans will pay nearly three billion dollars so that Democrats can pay back their political special interest groups?

More Democrat Deception

In a recent column, Dick Morris discusses healthcare legislation.

The Democrat healthcare legislation in both the House and Senate have been promised to us as providing healthcare to more people "without raising your (middle class) taxes." (Supposedly rich people are footing the bill.) Everything about this legislation smells to high heaven, but Democrats are using a couple of tricks to fool the public.

One trick they are using is to transfer part of the cost to states. Both the House and the Senate bills require that states cover a larger percentage of their people under Medicaid. The House bill requires states to give Medicaid to those whose incomes are less than 150 percent of the poverty level; the Senate version is 125 percent. For most states, this means covering more people.

California, for example, which only covers families earning up to 100 percent of the poverty level, would have to increase its Medicaid spending on poor people by 50 percent under the House version. The federal legislation does not provide funds to cover the entire increase, so what will states have to do to pay for the shortfall? Increase taxes. Washington DC politicians will get the credit for something state governors have to pay the political price for.

The other trick Democrats are using is to push actual implementation of the healthcare legislation back to 2013 (2014 in the Harry Reid Senate version.) Of course, this lets Obama run for reelection before the actual effects of the legislation are felt. More important than that, however, is the fact that taxes to pay for the healthcare will be increased right away.

This trick dilutes the "ten year cost" of the legislation which the Congressional Budget Office uses to calculate a bill's budget impact. If you get money for four years without any expenses, it makes any plan look pretty good, even if the way Democrats are explaining the plan is inaccurate. So any numbers we are told regarding the "budget neutralness" of the legislation are based on deception.
John McCain compared it to buying a house and making mortgage payments for four years before you can move in.

As alarmists do with global warming propaganda, Democrats are deceiving the public. That deception should be the topic of debate before anyone ever considers the legislation.

Bought and Paid For

From the Associated Press: GOP's Snowe Will Vote for Democratic Health Bill "WASHINGTON – Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe broke with her party Tuesday and said she will vote for a Democratic health care bill, handing President Barack Obama a much-sought boost in his quest to expand access to medical coverage to all Americans...."

Note: The Democrat legislation will still leave 20+ million Americans without insurance coverage. Sounds like Snowe held out for a better price.