Health Care Split

The repeat Rasmussen surveys on health care show a general unpopularity, but more interestingly, they show the break down by legislative area of concern:

One little-noted aspect of the debate was a disagreement over the purpose of the legislation. Most voters identified cost as the biggest problem with health care in America today, but about one-in-four said the lack of universal coverage was the top issue. Among those who see the lack of universal coverage as the biggest problem, 86% favored the legislation. However, among the majority who see cost as the biggest issue, 68% opposed the health care bill.

Kagan's Recusal Could Kill Obamacare

As of yesterday, Americans are aware of the ruling that found Obamacare unconstitutional since it allows Congress to compel Americans to buy health insurance. We are also aware of the left's knee-jerk response to the ruling, which basically involves a Congressional amendment to allow the law to squeak past the constitutionality issue. However, aside from the fact that the economics of the bill are not viable without the mandate, everyone but Jennifer Rubin overlooked this:

[The ultimate decision] will rest with the Supreme Court, whether the case goes directly there, as Republicans are urging, or whether it stops first in the 4th Circuit (which, I would venture, is very likely to uphold the district court ruling). But here's the tricky part: Justice Elena Kagan, having served in the Obama Justice Department, is surely to recuse herself. With the "liberals" one judge down, even a Kennedy vote to uphold the individual mandate would presumably result in a 4-4 tie. And guess what? If there is a tie, the lower ruling stands. In other words, this is really bad for ObamaCare advcoates.

This must be making the White House very nervous.

60% of People Favor Repeal of Health Care

The latest Rasmussen survey shows that 60% of likely voters at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law while only 34% are opposed to repeal. Support for repeal has ranged from 50% to 63% in weekly tracking since March. 

It will be interesting to see how the polling shifts as people take note of the federal bench's decision today. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html) I predict the numbers will increase when people consider the opinion and the unconstitutionality of forcing consumers to buy a service generally.

83% Think House Will Repeal Obamacare

A new poll shows that voters believe the 2011 Republican-controlled House of Representatives will vote to repeal the unpopular national health care law. Specifically, 83% of likely voters think it is at least somewhat likely that the House will vote to repeal it while 12% say a vote to repeal is not very or not at all likely. The same poll found that 59% of those who voted favor the House to repeal it. I hope the people prevail and force Obama to stop insulting us by insisting it was a necessary, emergency measure and not his pet project.  http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/252576/krauthammers-take-nro-staff

White House Concedes Money-Saving Health Care Claims Were False

According to a presentation (http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_pp.html) written by consultants that surfaced yesterday, the White House is reformulating its health care strategy in the face of its extreme unpopularity and calls for repeal. Most notably, they are abandoning claims that it will reduce costs and the deficit, and stressing a promise to "improve it" later.

They presentation urged Democrats to "use personal stories coupled with clear, simple descriptions of how the law benefits people at the individual level to convey critical benefits of reform." It cautioned them to "keep claims small and credible; don’t overpromise or ‘spin’ what the law delivers," and to tell constituents they will "work [to] improve it.” 

It was obvious that a certain point they would have to concede that their math was completely bogus, but I am shocked that they are admitting it at this early a stage, even before the midterms. I suppose they believe a change in message at this stage could help improve their image with the voters, but admitting you lied about  a very unpopular, wildly expensive, massive piece of legislation that you shoved through congress is once again,  very bad politics.

Democrats Admit that the Number of Agencies, Boards and Commissions Created Under Obamacare is "Unknowable"

A recent Congressional Research Service report admitted that it had no way of determining the number of agencies, boards and commissions created under the new health care law. "The law says a lot about some of them and a little about many, and merely mentions a few. Some have been authorized without any instructions on who is to appoint whom, when that might happen and who will pay." Republicans count at least 47 new bureaucratic entities in the hurried legislation, but the bill itself admits the precise number is "unknowable.” 

The bureaucratic morass boggles the mind and makes it more probable that this bill will either be repealed or starved of cash as the public opposition grows. 

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_c847dc7c-564c-5c70-8d90-dfd25ae6de56.html

63% Favor Repeal of Health Care Law

According to the latest poll, the percentage of voters in favor of repealing the health care law has jumped to an all-time high of 63% while those opposing repeal stands at a low 32%. (Before this poll, support for repeal ranged from 54 to 58% and  never reached the 60s.) Those who strongly favor repeal number 46% and those that strongly oppose repeal stands at 25%.

However, 77% of the political class, otherwise known as the entitlement class, continues to support the plan in stark contrast to the 67% of mainstream voters that believe it will be bad for America.

Again, 63% of all voters expect the health care plan to increase the federal deficit, 12% expect the bill to decrease the deficit and 13% say it will have no impact. Fifty-five percent (55%) expect the health care plan to drive up the cost of health care rather than causing those costs to go down. Only 18% believe health care costs will indeed go down because of the plan’s passage and 16% expect costs to stay about the same.

The poll had a margin of error at + or - 3% and a 95% level of confidence.

Pelosi Encourages "Creative Types" to Quit Jobs and Rely on Others to Fund Their Health Care

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this week that the new health-care reform law will allow musicians and other creative types to quit their jobs and focus on developing their talents because taxpayers would fund their health care coverage:

“We see it as an entrepreneurial bill,” Pelosi said, “a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care.”

I hope this is quoted time and again by the Republicans as we approach November.  What a baffoon.

Waxman Gets Waxed

Remember when Henry Waxman ordered AT&T, Verizon, Deere and Caterpillar to submit any and all interal company documentation to Congress regarding health care because someone caught wind of a memo about the bill's effect on retirement drug benefits?  Well, the companies submitted their documentation and instead of hailing them into Washington for hearings, Waxman ended up quietly dismissing the matter as the documentation showed that many large companies were weighing the option of dumping their employees' health care coverage in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government. Specifically,

AT&T produced a slide entitled "Medical Cost Versus No Coverage Penalty." A document prepared for Verizon by consulting firm Hewitt Resources stated, "Even though the proposed assessments [on companies that do not provide health care] are material, they are modest when compared to the average cost of health care," and that to avoid costs and regulations, "employers may consider exiting the health care market and send employees to the Exchanges."

A Deere labor relations officer sent in an email stating that the company should consider alternatives to providing health benefits, which "would amount to denying coverage and just paying the penalty." Caterpillar felt it would have to give "serious consideration" to the penalty option also. Their documentation also predicted certain increases as a direct result of the bill which made the penalty option even more attractive. Deere said, "We do expect double digit health care increases as most Americans will now have insurance and providers try to absorb the 15% uninsured into a practice." Both Caterpillar (CAT, Fortune 500) and Verizon stated that allowing dependents to remain on their parents' policies until age 26 would add expenses of $20 million a year.

Insurers Soon to Become Public Utilities

Just as many Republican pundits predicted, Democrats are already trying to concoct legislation to regulate insurance premiums now as they know costs will increase once ObamaCare takes effect. Senator Feinstein is proposing that the government regulate premium adjustments as it regulates public utility "companies." Basically, utilities must ask for Congress's blessing whenever they seek to raise rates, making them completely beholden to Washington.

How did the insurance companies, who acquiesced in this horrendous legislation, not see this coming? They agreed to allow the imposition of mandates on the type of benefits they must offer on top of agreeing to cover preexisting conditions despite knowing premiums would be driven higher because they believed their increased risk would be offset by government subsidies and the mandate forcing individuals to obtain insurance.

So, to make sure the insurers are completely under their thumbs, Feinstein wants to give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to reject rate increases effective immediately. She even said that she believed that health insurers should be regulated like a public utility. At least they're not blatantly lying anymore about their intentions to create government-run healthcare. The problem is, their controls will cause a decrease in the standard of care which will be felt by all. They will, of course, introduce more government intervention to correct those problems, and so on. This bill is more evidence (as if we needed it) that congress must repeal the legislation before 2014.

From Rhetoric to Reality

As we watch the political landscape take shape leading up to the November elections, I don't think anyone, but hardcore leftists, would disagree that for the first time in history, the United States has "an authentic leftist as president — one who unabashedly believes that the role of the U.S. government at home is to redistribute income in order to ensure equality of results through high taxes on a few and increased entitlements for many." Certainly, as one associates leftists with big government, Obama more than fits the bill. Although Bush started the government takeover movement when the economy plummeted, with the passage of Obamacare, the federal government now owns and/or controls 51% of the U.S. economy from mortgage lenders,car makers and now health care providers. The passage of Obamacare is leading many pundits to closely scrutinize the Massachusetts health care system, which is a microcosm of Obamacare, as both contain a mandate that individuals buy insurance, fines on businesses for not offering coverage, heavily regulated insurance exchanges, large-scale insurance subsidies and Medicaid expansion. As Rich Lowry Points out, (http://article.nationalreview.com/430842/obamacares-disastrous-preview/rich-lowry) Massachusetts premiums in the individual market have grown at a 30% annual rate since the program's inception and government spending in Massachusetts on the program has grown by about 40% from 2006 to 2009. However, Americans don't need the Massachusetts data to surmise what is obvious - adding 30 million individuals to Medicare will increase premiums, overall costs and the deficit. In fact, it seems more and more Americans are refusing to accept the deficit-reducing rhetoric, as a week after its passage, Obamacare's popularity fell 10% in the polls (53% to 32%) as reality settled in: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/can-republicans-read-polls-obamacare

Double Decade Teens

One of the provisions in the health care bill that takes effect initially allows parents to keep their "children" on their insurance policies until they reach the age of 27, which sounds relatively harmless since it would be unlikely to increase premiums drastically as health issues in twenty-somethings aren't generally plentiful. But, as Steyn points out in this article, "the impact of an endlessly deferred adulthood is...psychological. Even as the western world atrophies, not merely its pop culture but its entire societal aesthetic seems mired in arrested development."

Congressional Dunces

The fact that Congress isn't aware of, and doesn't understand the content of the health care bill is scary enough, but what this author explains is that they also don't understand the regulatory implications of what they have drafted. If they don't understand their own regulatory language and its consequences in the health care industry, God help them as they attempt to re-regulate the complexities of the securities industry. Read the full article at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Sunday_Reflections/Progressives-can_t-get-past-the-Knowledge-Problem-89780997.html#ixzz0kLovbZgS

Health Care Law not Unrepealable Like Social Security and Medicare

The linked article (click on the blog title, as always), discusses some very salient reasons why attempting to repeal the health care law is not akin to attempting a repeal other entitlement programs. Here are the Cliffs Notes: 1. Social Security and Medicare are entitlement programs that benefit those that pay for them. The health care bill, on the other hand, is paid for by Medicare beneficiaries and the wealthy, neither of whom are likely to receive the benefits. 2. The health care bill is perceived as a redistributive mechanism and is more similar to government programs that have been repealed such as the WPA, CCC and OEO. 3. The health care bill started on different footing than Social Security or Medicare. (This is my favorite point because everyone misrepresents this and claims that those programs received opposition similar to the health care bill.) The fact is, Social Security and Medicare did not start out as controversial programs and passed with significant support from the minority party. 4. It is not unthinkable for the GOP to win back both houses of Congress in November and gain a Senate supermajority and the Presidency in 2012.

Bill's Death to Private Student Loans Will Result in Job Losses

The final vote-getting link in the sausage-making of the health care bill was its $61 billion in health care "savings" which shifted all lending from the lender-based Federal Family Education Loan Program to the government's Direct Loan Program. The language made it into the bill despite private lender's best efforts to stop them from ending their ability to make loans, which they argued would kill thousands of jobs. The federal student-loan takeover of the remaining 14% of private industry loans is both another reason to hate this bill and an example of our government's overstep to the detriment of competition and private industry. To be fair, the abolishment of the private student loan industry started with the creation of the “Stafford Loan” program in 1965 to allow students to borrow money cheaply with a government guarantee. Subsequently, the government saw fit to transfer loans made by private lenders to the government’s books with a subsidy, which allowed sketchy, but more favorable book-keeping. Clinton then started the direct loan program where the government would directly make its own loans to students, supposedly increasing competition. With a glance back at history, it's easy to see how lenders were slowly elbowed out by government loan programs in this industry. As I said, only 14% remain and with this bill, Obama and Congress will have eliminated the last profit-makers from the business to "save" money - money which he has already spent on health care at the expense of many thousand jobs, according to private banking institutions. (See http://www.journalstar.com/business/local/article_e1492e4a-391f-11df-a246-001cc4c03286.html)

The Potential VAT Tax and the Real "Voodoo Economics" of the Heath Care Bill

Krauthammer predicted a national sales tax earlier this week but has now provided a more concrete case explaining the specific economic pitfalls of the health care bill and why a value added tax will be necessary to plug the hole. As he put it, "Obamacare, when stripped of its budgetary gimmicks — the unfunded $200 billion­–plus doctor fix, the double-counting of Medicare cuts, the ten-six sleight-of-hand (counting ten years of revenue and only six years of outflows) — is, at minimum, a $2trillion new entitlement." So, which funds will be expended to expand Medicaid by adding 15 million new dependents as the debt grows exponentially, our bond ratings become more threatened and hyperinflation looms? Well, as Obama has intimated, his deficit-reduction commission will tell us AFTER the elections. And what will they tell us? If you're Krauthammer, you believe a 1% consumption tax is coming as "every 1 percent of VAT would yield up to $1 trillion a decade." According to Krauthammer, levying all the taxes in the world on the "rich," which is now defined as anyone making $200,000, is not nearly enough to cover the largest and most expensive entitlement in history. And as he points out, the VAT will only grow once instituted, just as was the case in Europe. ("Germany: 19 percent. France and Italy: 20 percent. Most of Scandinavia: 25 percent.") And, I'm betting he's right about this because it makes sense that "as we approach European levels of entitlements, we will need European levels of taxation."

Obama Already Lowering Expectations

Since he began the health care crusade, Obama has been reiterating that once the ink dries, Americans will start to see their premiums and pharmaceutical costs drop. In his radio address this week he was much less specific, saying, "But what every American should know is that once I sign health insurance reform into law, there are dozens of protections and benefits that will take effect this year." In his speech today in Iowa, Obama once again, famously, shifted his rhetoric to reflect the actual contents of the bill. In other words, he scaled WAY back on promises to bring immediate change:

Now, it will take about four years to implement this entire plan – because we need to do it responsibly and we need to get it right. That means that health care costs won’t go down overnight. But we have built into the law all sorts of measures to assure that in years to come, health care inflation, which has been rising about three times as fast as people’s wages, will start slowing. We’ll start reducing the waste in the system, from unnecessary tests to unwarranted insurance subsidies. So over time, Americans will save money.

Is anyone surprised? He, even more than most politicians, has a knack for the "What? I've said that all along." So, what is the real truth? None of the major provisions providing coverage take place until 2014 except the provisions barring insurers from denying children with preexisting conditions coverage and the provision closing the "doughnut hole" on Medicare prescriptions (whatever the hell that means).

Value Added Tax to Finance Health Care?

As everyone has been saying, the health care bill was "financed" on assumptions of potential votes and false projections, so how will they recoup the money to pay for this gigantic entitlement? Krauthammer thinks they will impose a value added tax to every purchase we make. Listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHiEyPk78EU

Stupak's Price

"Three airports in the district of infamous fence-sitting and ultimately kowtowing Democrat Bart Stupak were awarded $726,409 in grants by the Obama Administration just two days before a vote on Obama and Pelosi’s government takeover of health care." All the backroom deals will now be brought to light. If anyone talks to me about Obama's "integrity" from here forward, I'll just have to assume they're blind idiots.

Constitutional Challenges to Health Care Unlikely to Prevail

Constitutional scholars are already debating whether the individual state suits being filed by conservative attorney generals (Virginia's was the first to announce - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2219276420100322) will successfully prove the health care bill's mandate that all Americans buy insurance unconstitutional. I believe, like Professor Esenberg, that it's unlikely. The decision will in fact eventually find its way to the Supremes, but given their distaste for second-guessing Congress, and the fact that Anthony Kennedy will be the deciding vote, it seems like more of a gamble than repeal. And, like Professor Esenberg, I believe it will be the final blow to our liberties and the check the courts once had on the legislature. As he put it, "It will be tragic because the notion of a Congress limited by the scope of its enumerated powers will have finally suffered the coup de grace. The Bill of Rights (once famously - and now ironically - thought to be unnecessary given the structural limits on the power of the national government) will become the only limitation on the power of Congress. If Congress can require you to buy health insurance because of the ways in which your uncovered existence effects interstate commerce or because it can tax you in an effort to force you to do any old thing it wants you to, it is hard to see what - save some other constitutional restriction - it cannot require you to do - or prohibit you from doing." This becomes particularly scary when the Congressmen voting to take your liberties away, aren't even able to decipher from which part of the Constitution they draw this apparent authority. (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0VYOa2BRbg). Congressman Conyers believes there is a "good and welfare clause" in the Constitution. Ummm, you mean, "general welfare" clause? The clause liberals use to justify stamping on the Constitution and redesigning the framer's structures of power? As Esenberg stated, if Congress is only limited by the Bill of Rights (thank God that was drafted) then what can't they do but take your life or property unjustly after taxing it to death? The framers intended for Congress to have specifically enumerated powers and by the passage of this bill, Congress has once again ignored those limitations.