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.

A Glimmer of Hope for Repeal?

I know it's a long shot, but what about a Republican takeover of the House and, ahem, Senate in November and a supermajority in the Senate along with a Republican President in 2012? Rich Lowry gives us some reasons for optimism. Most importantly, that the benefits do not kick in until 2014.

Doomsday Arrives

So, in the end, Stupak folded and now we have another gigantic entitlement that we cannot afford. And for what? An executive order that mimmicked the language in the bill that he originally opposed. And more importantly, an executive order that will do nothing to affect the legislation as Stupak understands, as does anyone who has a cursory understanding of the checks and balances system. (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/03/21/gop-abortion-deal-wont-trump-the-law/) So, thanks to spineless Stupak and his stooges, we are left with a bill that will result in much higher taxes, slower economic growth and worse medical care. How will this affect you? If the reconciliation bill is passed, within the next six months, if you make over $200,000, you will pay another 3.8% in Medicare taxes. You will also enjoy an increase from 35% to 39.6% in your income tax rate. Raising taxes in a recession will slow or prevent recovery, but the Hill doesn't care. The bill also creates a 3.8% tax on interest and dividend income above certain levels beginning in 2013. However, those are the provisions in the reconciliation bill, which has not passed yet. The original Senate bill does not contain this almost 10% tax increase on productive working individuals. Instead, it contains middle-class insurance subsidies that are less costly and does not contain the new 3.8% payroll tax. So, what happens if the reconciliation bill goes down as it is destined to do since the GOP can stick amendments in it to cause certain defeat? We're stuck with the original bill, which was passed yesterday. What does that mean? "Big Labor and its Democratic clients would be forced to swallow a larger excise tax on high-cost insurance plans, and it would also forestall the private student-loan takeover that Democrats included as a sweetener. In other words, they'd be forced to eat the sausage they themselves made as they have abused Congressional procedure to push ObamaCare into law." This is a near certainty, as even though the Democrats can pass the reconcilation bill with only 50 votes in the Senate, once poison pill amendments enter in, some will be forced to vote against the bill. Regardless of the outcome of the reconciliation bill, this is a truly sad and scary day in America. The voters understand that our government is spending us into unsustainable levels of debt and taking over every area of business and our lives. I wish they'd known this was exactly what Obama intended when they voted for him in 2008. The only consolation, however small, will be November, when the GOP takes back the House and Senate. Of course, they won't be able to repeal this monstrosity until 2014 before the benefits kick in, when they have a senate supermajority and a Republican president. I know it's a long shot, but it's all I've got.

Spineless Stupakers?

Sources say the Stupak 12 are still in negotiations with Pelosi to place language restricting the use of federal funding for abortions into the "deem and pass" lesgislation. The Stupakers said they want a "committment to act letter" as any deal involving future legislation would require them to trust that the House and Senate would both act to ban abortion funding. Of course, even with this letter, these legislators understand that the Senate will not act even if they all say they will. So in effect, they are going through the motions to cover their - pardon my French - asses. If they agree to this, I hope all 12 are held accountable in November as the individual polls in their more conservative districts all indicate their constituents are opposed to this bill. (See http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34680.html)