H.R. 3962 House Health Care "Reform" Bill for Vote Saturday

Democrats are so eager to own it.

------------------------
(Update) Democratic leadership suggesting that they may postpone the vote to Sunday or early next week because of internal opposition. See this article.
------------------------

House Prepares Health Vote, Undaunted by Elections (Update1)
(James Rowley, 11/5/09 Bloomberg)

"Nov. 5 (Bloomberg) -- House Democratic leaders, undeterred by delays in the Senate or this week’s Republican electoral triumphs, plan to call a vote Saturday on the most sweeping overhaul of U.S. health-care policy in four decades.

"The House will move on the $1.05 trillion legislation that would cover 36 million uninsured people and create a government plan to compete with private insurers even after the election of Republican governors in New Jersey and Virginia. President Barack Obama will go to Capitol Hill tomorrow to meet with House Democrats, as they seek the 218 votes they need to pass the bill, a Democratic leadership aide said.

"Party leaders signaled they’re ready for a debate on the legislation and a vote on its final passage by filing a 42-page amendment that made last-minute changes to the bill. The Nov. 3 filing triggered a 72-hour waiting period that Democrats pledged to give Republicans before a vote."

You can read the entire article by clicking on the link above. But the last paragraph cited above needs clarification. Yes, Pelosi posted the amendment, but that is not what she had solemnly promised, which was to post the final draft of the legislation itself 72 hours in advance of the vote.

So, the former H.R. 3200 has morphed and bloated into H.R. 3962, retaining almost all the controversial sections and more, to the tune of $1.05 trillion dollars over 10 years. $29,167 per uninsured person.

Pretty much in line with this government's idea of "bang for the buck". The cash for clunkers program generated extra 125,000 sales at the cost of $3 billion, or $24,000 per car. But both cash for clunkers and health care "reform" vastly outperform the stimulus package, which so far generated or preserved 640,329 jobs for $207.3 billion spent so far. $323,739.83 per job created or saved (of course there's no breakdown of "created" and "saved").

There are 256 Democrats out of 435 House members, and they only need a simple majority of 218 votes. Democrats don't need a single Republican to pass this bill that promises so much for the supporters of bigger bureaucracy. After all, this is basically the same Congress that passed the bankers bailout bill (TARP) last fall against the overwhelming opposition from the taxpayers.

I only peeked into H.R. 3962 (1990 pages by the way) as I just couldn't stand it long enough. I will try to peek more later, but according to many people who have been going through the bill, the legislation would create 13 new taxes.

HR 3962: 1990 Pages, Thirteen New Taxes (10/29/09 Left Coast Rebel)

Tweet

Senate Health Care Bill (S.1796) Is 1,502-Page Long

as posted by Senate Finance Committee.

Finance Committee bill has been filed (10/19/09 Politico)

Who is going to read this monstrosity? Just like there were people who read the House bill (H.R. 3200) and post the summary on the Internet, I'm sure someone's already on it.

This bill is being merged with the Health Committee's bill, apparently in behind the scene negotiation, as Politico's UPDATE 3 indicates [emphasis is mine]:

"UPDATE 3: It's important to remember that the bill won't exist in this form for long. Senate Majority Leader Reid and Sens. Max Baucus and Chris Dodd along with senior White House aides are merging the Finance and Health Committee legislation into one bill that will be considered on the floor of the Senate. The behind-closed-doors dealings have drawn criticism from Republicans, particularly because President Obama had promised a transparent process and pledged to negotiate the health care bill on C-SPAN."

Tweet

Health Care "Reform": They Will Own It

House Speaker "un-American" Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader "evil-monger" Harry Reid think they have the votes on health care "reform" that has so divided the country.

Pelosi and Reid Tell President: We Have the Votes; President Wants Bill Passed Soon (9/8/09 ABC News)

"While White House spokesman Robert Gibbs today refrained from telling reporters whether President Obama in his speech Wednesday night will set a deadline for passing health care reform, sources tell ABC News that in his private meeting with Democratic congressional leaders this afternoon the key word was urgency.

"The president told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., that it is important for them to pass health care reform bills soon, the sources said.
"Both leaders told the president that despite the difficult rough and tumble of the legislative process in the last few weeks, they are optimistic that both the House and Senate can pass health care reform legislation.

"What will be in the bill remains an open question, though after the meeting, Reid told reporters that “we're going to do our very best to have a public option or something like a public option before we finish this work.”

The key word is urgency? The president wants to have these "reform" bills passed urgently for... what? Why because I say so! (If there is a reason, no one is saying.)

That probably means Democrats will pass the health care "reform" bills on their own, a strict partisan vote. As Reid indicated, the bill will probably include all the contentious sections - public option, extensive power to IRS (Section 141 , Section 245, Section 431, Section 453 of H.R. 3200), extensive power to an unelected Presidential appointee (Health Choices Commissioner, Section 141 of H.R. 3200), end-of-life care (Section 1233 of H.R. 3200), penalty/surtax for people without insurance (Section 401 of H.R. 3200); big pharma companies will be happy with their deal with the White House, no doubt. Oh, one more thing: Congress will be exempt from the "reform".

And one last thing: intrusive health care information technology (computerizing everything), the bulk of which was already signed into law with hardly any restraint (because it sneaked in in the stimulus bill in February), will no doubt be spearheaded by a dynamic Indian duo of Information Czar and Technology Czar. If the cash for clunkers program is any indication of the government idea of information technology in the 21st century, good luck to all of us. We will need it aplenty.

Democrats and the president will own it, if they ram the health care "reform" through Congress.

(Did "health care crisis" crash the stock market and plunge the whole world into a severe recession last fall? Maybe it did... Oh wait, it was "global warming" that did it, didn't it? Or was it "school crisis"?)

Tweet

Health Care Bill Will Empower IRS

(Be sure to check out other health care "reform" posts on this blog.)

as if IRS needs any more empowering. Supporters of the administration's health care "reform", is that what you want?

Health care reform means more power for the IRS
(Byron York, 9/2/09 Washington Examiner)

"There's been a lot of discussion about the new and powerful federal agencies that would be created by the passage of a national health care bill. The Health Choices Administration, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, the Health Insurance Exchange — there are dozens in all.

"But if the plan envisioned by President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats is enacted, the primary federal bureaucracy responsible for implementing and enforcing national health care will be an old and familiar one: the Internal Revenue Service. Under the Democrats' health care proposals, the already powerful — and already feared — IRS would wield even more power and extend its reach even farther into the lives of ordinary Americans, and the presidentially-appointed head of the new health care bureaucracy would have access to confidential IRS information about millions of individual taxpayers."

"The presidentially-appointed head of the new health care bureaucracy" is none other than the Health Choices Commissioner, which is defined in Subtitle E Section 141 of H.R. 3200 heath care "reform" bill. Not just him/her/it, but people working in that bureaucracy would have access. And the Commissioner would not be accountable to anyone but to the president.

The article continues:

"Under the various proposals now on the table, the IRS would become the main agency for determining who has an "acceptable" health insurance plan; for finding and punishing those who don't have such a plan; for subsidizing individual health insurance costs through the issuance of a tax credits; and for enforcing the rules on those who attempt to opt out, abuse, or game the system. A substantial portion of H.R. 3200, the House health care bill, is devoted to amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to give the IRS the authority to perform these new duties.

"The Democrats' plan would require all Americans to have "acceptable" insurance coverage (the legislation includes long and complex definitions of "acceptable") and would designate the IRS as the agency charged with enforcing that requirement. On your yearly 1040 tax return, you would be required to attest that you have "acceptable" coverage. Of course, you might be lying, or simply confused about whether or not you are covered, so the IRS would need a way to check your claim for accuracy. Under current plans, insurers would be required to submit to the IRS something like the 1099 form in which taxpayers report outside income. The IRS would then check the information it receives from the insurers against what you have submitted on your tax form.

"If it all matches up, you're fine. If it doesn't, you will hear from the IRS. And if you don't have "acceptable" coverage, you will be subject to substantial fines — fines that will be administered by the IRS."

and determined by the Health Choices Commissioner.

The section of H.R. 3200 this article mentions that would amend the IRS Revenue Code of 1986 is this:

TITLE IV--AMENDMENTS TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986
Subtitle A--Shared Responsibility
PART 1--INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
Section 401 TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

(a) In General- Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new part:

`PART VIII--HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES
`subpart a. tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
`Subpart A--Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage
`Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
`SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

The above is the cut and paste from the actual bill as posted on the Library of Congress THOMAS.

Now, this Section 59B defines the penalty tax if you don't have the coverage, and also lists exceptions. That alone makes an interesting and frustrating reading, but the section that has to do with IRS comes right after Section 59B. It's Section 6050X. (So... that's after 59B? There must be some higher order of reasoning behind numbering that I just can't perceive.) You can see, with some effort, that the information that the Washington Examiner writer gleaned out for his article is basically correct. [emphasis is mine, comments in Italic]

`SEC. 6050X. RETURNS RELATING TO HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.

`(a) Requirement of Reporting- Every person who provides acceptable coverage (as defined in section 59B(d)) to any individual during any calendar year shall, at such time as the Secretary may prescribe, make the return described in subsection (b) with respect to such individual. [This is the insurer part of the deal. Your insurer will have to file a report with IRS.]

`(b) Form and Manner of Returns- A return is described in this subsection if such return--
`(1) is in such form as the Secretary may prescribe, and
`(2) contains--
`(A) the name, address, and TIN of the primary insured and the name of each other individual obtaining coverage under the policy,
`(B) the period for which each such individual was provided with the coverage referred to in subsection (a), and
`(C) such other information as the Secretary may require.

`(c) Statements To Be Furnished to Individuals With Respect to Whom Information Is Required- Every person required to make a return under subsection (a) shall furnish to each primary insured whose name is required to be set forth in such return a written statement showing-- [Then your insurer has to issue you a statement of your coverage so that you can file with your tax return. And these two'd better match.]

`(1) the name and address of the person required to make such return and the phone number of the information contact for such person, and
`(2) the information required to be shown on the return with respect to such individual.
The written statement required under the preceding sentence shall be furnished on or before January 31 of the year following the calendar year for which the return under subsection (a) is required to be made.

`(d) Coverage Provided by Governmental Units- In the case of coverage provided by any governmental unit or any agency or instrumentality thereof, the officer or employee who enters into the agreement to provide such coverage (or the person appropriately designated for purposes of this section) shall make the returns and statements required by this section.'.

(2) PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO FILE-
[This segment refers to the specific sections in the IRS Revenue Code to be changed. To see what kind of penalty awaits the insurer and you, you'd better have a courage to dig through the IRS Code.]

How to prevent tax cheating? That comes in the following sections under Sustitle D, particularly Section 453:

Subtitle D--Other Revenue Provisions
PART 2--PREVENTION OF TAX AVOIDANCE
SEC. 451. LIMITATION ON TREATY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN DEDUCTIBLE PAYMENTS
SEC. 452. CODIFICATION OF ECONOMIC SUBSTANCE DOCTRINE
SEC. 453. PENALTIES FOR UNDERPAYMENTS

(a) Penalty for Underpayments Attributable to Transactions Lacking Economic Substance-

(1) IN GENERAL- Subsection (b) of section 6662 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new paragraph:
`(6) Any disallowance of claimed tax benefits by reason of a transaction lacking economic substance (within the meaning of section 7701(o)) or failing to meet the requirements of any similar rule of law.'.

(2) INCREASED PENALTY FOR NONDISCLOSED TRANSACTIONS- Section 6662 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(i) Increase in Penalty in Case of Nondisclosed Noneconomic Substance Transactions-

`(1) IN GENERAL- In the case of any portion of an underpayment which is attributable to one or more nondisclosed noneconomic substance transactions, subsection (a) shall be applied with respect to such portion by substituting `40 percent' for `20 percent'.

`(2) NONDISCLOSED NONECONOMIC SUBSTANCE TRANSACTIONS- For purposes of this subsection, the term `nondisclosed noneconomic substance transaction' means any portion of a transaction described in subsection (b)(6) with respect to which the relevant facts affecting the tax treatment are not adequately disclosed in the return nor in a statement attached to the return.

`(3) SPECIAL RULE FOR AMENDED RETURNS- Except as provided in regulations, in no event shall any amendment or supplement to a return of tax be taken into account for purposes of this subsection if the amendment or supplement is filed after the earlier of the date the taxpayer is first contacted by the Secretary regarding the examination of the return or such other date as is specified by the Secretary.'.

So, the section is saying that if IRS thinks there's is not enough disclosed, it would double the penalty, whatever the penalty currently is in that particular section in the IRS Code.

I can really see now that the government is indeed trying so hard to blow as many bubbles as possible to resuscitate the economy. It is already successfully blowing and growing the bubble in government-sponsored and subsidized subprime lending. Cash for clunkers "worked" well enough for the first week of the program; it achieved the result of bringing the sales forward, if that's what they wanted to achieve just to get 3Q GDP into green.

But the most tantalizingly promising bubble is the bubble of fast-growing, self-replicating and self-referencing bureaucracy. If the administration manages to pass its health care "reform", climate change bill (aka cap and trade) and vast financial "reform", imagine how many people can be employed by government agencies to be created! And to think we will be asked to participate in these grand schemes by paying for them!

I highly recommend that you go to the linked article and read the entire article. If the townhall meeting is still ongoing in your area, ask about this IRS further intrusion into private life. The last thing I wanted to quote from the article:

"In either scenario, the IRS would be the key to making the system work. Before you could receive any subsidy, whether through the IRS or not, the Health Choices Administration would have to determine whether you are eligible for it. To do so, the bills under consideration would give the Health Choices Commissioner the authority to demand sensitive, confidential information from the IRS about individual taxpayers. The IRS would have to provide it.

"Under current law, it is a felony for a government official to release taxpayer information in all but the most limited of circumstances. One such exception is for law enforcement; the IRS is allowed to give taxpayer information to prosecutors in criminal cases. The information can also, in some instances, be released to the Social Security Administration and the Veterans' Administration for the determination of benefits. The health care bills would change the Internal Revenue Code to permit the IRS to give similar information to the vast, new health care bureaucracy."

Tweet

Ultimate Chutzpah: ABC Rejects Ad Ciritical of Obama Health Care "Reform" as "Partisan"

More on the mainstream media coverage on the administration's health care "reform" and on-going debate among citizenry.

ABC (who aired the special program on health care from within the White House) and NBC (the CEO of the parent company, GE, is an economic advisor to President Obama, who also happens to be a director at New York Federal Reserve Bank) refuse to air an ad critical of Obama Administration's health care "reform".

ABC, NBC Won't Air Ad Critical of Obama's Health Care Plan
(8/27/09 Fox News) [emphasis is mine]

"The refusal by ABC and NBC to run a national ad critical of President Obama's health care reform plan is raising questions from the group behind the spot -- particularly in light of ABC's health care special aired in prime time last June and hosted at the White House.
The 33-second ad by the League of American Voters, which features a neurosurgeon who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to the rationing of procedures and medicine, began airing two weeks ago on local affiliates of ABC, NBC, FOX and CBS. On a national level, however, ABC and NBC have refused to run the spot in its present form."

The ad was created by the League of American Voters (according to Fox article, a national nonprofit group with 15,000 members who advocate individual liberty and government accountability).

"[Bob] Adams [executive director of the League of American Voters] said the advertisement is running on local network affiliates in states like Louisiana, Arkansas, Maine and Pennsylvania. But although CBS has approved the ad for national distribution and talks are ongoing with FOX, NBC has questioned some of the ad's facts while ABC has labeled it "partisan.""

""The ABC Television Network has a long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial public issue," spokeswoman Susan Sewell said in a written statement. "Just to be clear, this is a policy for the entire network, not just ABC News."

"NBC, meanwhile, said it has not turned down the ad and will reconsider it with some revisions."

No one, not even Obama, seems to know exactly what's in the House bill H.R. 3200, what's in the Senate version, what's in the versions that different committees in the House and the Senate have been discussing. However, NBC apparently knows all the "facts" to dispute the ad (I wonder it's a "fact sheet" provided by the White House/Democratic Party, instead of "facts"), and ABC labels it "partisan", totally oblivious to the fact that by rejecting the "partisan" ad the network itself is taking a "partisan" position.

As the article cites Dick Morris (a FOX News political analyst and the League of American Voters' chief strategist, who was a onetime advisor to former President Bill Clinton):

""It's the ultimate act of chutzpah because ABC is the network that turned itself over completely to Obama for a daylong propaganda fest about health care reform," he said. "For them to be pious and say they will not accept advertising on health care shuts their viewers out from any possible understanding of both sides of this issue.""

Speaking of being partisan, ABC is clearly excited about the return of "Harry and Louise" ad, this time promoting their dear leader's health care "reform". The ad, as I wrote in my posts, was created by a pharmaceutical industry lobby PhRMA who reportedly has had a secret deal on health care with the White House and whose slogan on their website says "Disease is our enemy. Working to save lives is our job."

And here I was, thinking the days of militarizing everything was over and done with, with the previous administration. By the way, as I mentioned in my post also, the health care bill H.R. 3200 is full of "corps" and "force" for the "positive" "change".

Tweet

CBS Raises Questions on Health Care "Reform" Bill H.R. 3200

Even the mainstream media seems to have started to read the health care "reform" bill H.R. 3200 and started asking some relevant questions.

Democratic Health Care Bill Divulges IRS Tax Data
(Declan McCullagh, 8/26/09 CBS News)

"One of the problems with any proposed law that's over 1,000 pages long and constantly changing is that much deviltry can lie in the details. Take the Democrats' proposal to rewrite health care policy, better known as H.R. 3200 or by opponents as "Obamacare." (Here's our CBS News television coverage.) "

After that preamble, the article goes on to actually list specific sections of the bill H.R. 3200 and discuss potential problems: [emphasis is mine]

"Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."

[And remember, this Health Choices Commissioner is to be appointed by the President, and accountable only to the President. No confirmation by Congress is required, ever.]

"Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify "affordability credits."

"Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it. "

Whether they want to apply for it or not.

"Over at the Institute for Policy Innovation (a free-market think tank and presumably no fan of Obamacare), Tom Giovanetti argues that: "How many thousands of federal employees will have access to your records? The privacy of your health records will be only as good as the most nosy, most dishonest and most malcontented federal employee.... So say good-bye to privacy from the federal government. It was fun while it lasted for 233 years."

"I'm not as certain as Giovanetti that this represents privacy's Armageddon. (Though I do wonder where the usual suspects like the Electronic Privacy Information Center are. Presumably inserting limits on information that can be disclosed -- and adding strict penalties on misuse of the information kept on file about hundreds of millions of Americans -- is at least as important as fretting about Facebook's privacy policy in Canada.)

"A better candidate for a future privacy crisis is the so-called stimulus bill enacted with limited debate early this year. It mandated the "utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014," but included only limited privacy protections."

Bingo.

A very important component of the so-called health care "reform" by the administration is already SIGNED INTO LAW, because it was buried in the so-called "stimulus" (so far all it has stimulated is government, local, state and federal) bill that no one read (and the Democratic Congressman of my area actually expressed pride in not having read it - that would be so below him). In other words, the administration/Democrats can make any concession to please Republicans and skeptical Democrats regarding the privacy issue in the health care bill, and the concession is basically irrelevant.

The opponents of this bill and the health care "reform" as presented by this administration and Democratic Congress should start thinking about ways, if any, to repeal this part of the stimulus bill. (I will discuss the particular segment of the stimulus bill that is related to health care in a later, separate post.)

The writer concludes:

"If we're going to have such significant additional government intrusion into our health care system, we will have to draw the privacy line somewhere. Maybe the House Democrats' current bill gets it right. Maybe it doesn't. But this vignette should be reason to be skeptical of claims that a massive and complex bill must be enacted as rapidly as its backers would have you believe. "

Well, it's not given that we will have to have such government intrusion. But I am glad to see the mainstream media like CBS News is starting to ask questions, instead of simply being a spokesperson for the government like certain other networks (the one that starts with "N" comes to mind, whose parent company starts with "G").

If you go to the linked site, be sure to check out the comment section. The writer is bombarded with the supporters of the bill and/or the administration's "reform" calling him all sorts of names, but there are opponents to the bill who seem rather surprised that CBS has allowed this article to be published at all.

--------------------

(Talk about health... Sorry for tardy posting today. There were many topics that I wanted to write about, but I couldn't concentrate enough to write anything while those drummers on the beach (not the beach right nearby but several blocks away) just bonging and bonging, creating low-frequency sound wave that physically pressured my skull and my heart, making me ill. Think twice before you consent to a power-generating wind turbine near you.)

Tweet

Congressman Ross: Insuring the Uninsured Not Top Priority

So now a Democratic Congressman says insuring the uninsured is not the top priority in the health care "reform". On top of it, he claims it has never been the top priority.

Huh?

When I saw the headline, I instantly recalled the WMD (weapons of mass destruction) being touted by the previous administration (including Congressional leaders like then-Senators Biden and Hillary Clinton) as the primary reason to go to war with Iraq. It was conveniently dropped after the U.S. was in Iraq, mostly because of the fact that they didn't exist.

But this time around, the pretext for pushing the "reform" is being dropped even before the "reform" becomes law.

Leading Blue Dog: Covering uninsured not top priority of health reform (8/20/09 The Hill's Blog Briefing Room)

"Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) said on Wednesday that providing healthcare to uninsured Americans is "not what this healthcare reform debate is about."

"In making his comments, Ross, who is the centrist Blue Dogs' health reform point man, questioned one of the primary healthcare goals of the White House and Democratic leaders.

""That is a side benefit to healthcare reform and an important one," Ross told the Arkansas Educational Television Network. Instead, the fifth-term congressman said the bill should focus on "cost containment."

That must be news to both supporters and opponents. The health care "reform" has been sold as a way to insure 40 to 50 million Americans who do not have health insurance. (The number has crept up from initial 40 million or so to 50 million. Makes you wonder if it will be 60 million by the end of the recess, and 70 or 80 million by the time Congress start debating.)

The President himself have been harping on the point over and over, and presenting it as central to his "reform". You can read it here, here, and here.

For Congressman Ross, the deal breakers would be:

"Providing government subsides for abortions, coverage for illegal immigrants, rationing of care, and deficit increases comprised Ross' deal-breakers."

How he thinks cost containment is possible without rationing is a mystery to me. Maybe he simply means "without overt act of rationing". It will happen by default. And the rest, they are already happening or will happen also (particularly the last one). Congressman Ross is kidding himself if he thinks otherwise.

From ancient Rome onward, an effort to control/supress cost always results in disaster - runaway inflation, shortage, and black market. If I simply apply these outcome to the future health care, we will have costlier service we have less access of, and if we need treatment in a timely manner we will do what Canadians have been doing - we head south to Mexico (or further south like Costa Rica) for quality care that is provided promptly at less cost.

Tweet

Public Option: Off Again, On Again...Which Is It?

It was only last Sunday that the White House apparently signaled it would abandon the so-called "public option" from the health care "reform". After the (old) new resolve, seemingly, to go it alone which emerged just yesterday, now the "public option" is back on again.

The White House Press Secretary blames it on media's misunderstanding the President's words. (Mais bien sûr. Aber natürlich. Ma naturalmente. 当然.)

'PUBLIC' HUMILIATION: PREZ IN DOUBLE-FLIP ON HEALTH OPTION (8/19/09 New York Post)

"WASHINGTON -- The White House fell into full retreat yesterday from its earlier surrender of Democratic plans for a massive new government-run insurance agency as part of its health-care reform bid.

"The Obama administration now says it remains fully behind the idea of a "public option" for government-run insurance, despite clear signals over the weekend from top officials that the public option is not a deal-breaker and is just a "sliver" of the overall reforms it seeks.

"White House spokesman Robert Gibbs blamed the media for misunderstanding the administration's support.

""The president prefers the public option as a way of doing that," he said. "If others have ideas, we're open to those ideas and willing to listen to those details. That's what the president has said for months."

"The public-health option would be a federally run health-insurance program, similar to Medicare or Medicaid, that would provide insurance to millions of low-income and uninsured Americans. Supporters believe it would compete with private insurers, forcing them to lower prices."[emphasis is mine]

Medicare and Medicaid are broke, if we care to recall.

How could these supporters believe the government-run program would compete with private insurers, when the President himself compares the government-run program with United States Postal Service?? Since when USPS is a competitive, viable service? (Answer: never.)

Here's an article from Bloomberg on Obama going postal:

Obama Goes Postal, Lands in Dead-Letter Office: Caroline Baum (8/18/09 Bloomberg) [emphasis is mine]

"Aug. 18 (Bloomberg) -- “UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.” -- Barack Obama, Aug. 11, 2009

"No institution has been the butt of more government- inefficiency jokes than the U.S. Postal Service. Maybe the Department of Motor Vehicles...."

"That didn’t stop President Barack Obama from holding up the post office as an example at a town hall meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, last week.

"When Obama compared the post office to UPS and FedEx, he was clearly hoping to assuage voter concerns about a public health-care option undercutting and eliminating private insurance.

"What he did instead was conjure up visions of long lines and interminable waits. Why do we need or want a health-care system that works like the post office?

"What’s more, if the USPS is struggling to compete with private companies, as Obama implied, why introduce a government health-care option that would operate at the same disadvantage?"

You can read the rest of the article by following the above link.

(One of the favorite antics of the local post office in my area seems to be to close one or two of the 4 windows when the line is the longest, around noon-time. So the postal workers get their deserved lunch break on time, and the customers get their deserved wait doubled.)

Tweet

No Health Care Reform by Congress, Majority Say

(Update 8:40PM PST - Link to New York Times article (about Dems going it alone) is attached to the Drudge Report headline toward the end of the post. Or click here.)
-------------------

Therefore Congressional Democrats and the White House may just go it alone (which they have been saying since the beginning; probably planned that way all along anyway).

According to Rasmussen Reports,

54% Say Passing No Healthcare Reform Better Than Passing Congressional Plan (8/15/09 Rasmussen Reports) [emphasis is mine]

"Thirty-five percent (35%) of American voters say passage of the bill currently working its way through Congress would be better than not passing any health care reform legislation this year. However, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that most voters (54%) say no health care reform passed by Congress this year would be the better option.

"This does not mean that most voters are opposed to health care reform. But it does highlight the level of concern about the specific proposals that Congressional Democrats have approved in a series of Committees. To this point, there has been no Republican support for the legislative effort although the Senate Finance Committee is still attempting to seek a bi-partisan solution.

"Not surprisingly, there is a huge partisan divide on this issue. Sixty percent (60%) of Democrats say passing the legislation in Congress would be the best course of action. However, 80% of Republicans take the opposite view. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 23% would like the Congressional reform to pass while 66% would rather the legislators take no action."

Voters who would be likely to bear the burden of funding this program, if passed, seem increasingly to oppose action in favor of no action. They are not fooled by the plan "to be funded by the rich".

"Voters who earn less than $20,000 a year are evenly divided but a majority of all other voters would prefer no action. Middle income voters, those who earn from $40,000 to $75,000 a year, are most strongly in favor of taking no action.

"From the beginning of the debate, voters have indicated support for the concept of health care reform and for some of the specific ideas that have been suggested. However, they are skeptical about what has been presented thus far in Congress. One reason is skepticism about Congress itself. By a two-to-one margin, voters believe that no matter how bad things are Congress could always make it worse."

Voters are no dummies.

"One reason that the President has been careful to distinguish between his idea of health care reform and a single payer system is that just 32% favor Single-Payer health care while 57% are opposed. "

Now, taken together with the latest Gallup's poll that indicates there are more Conservatives than Liberals in each and every state except for Washington D.C., you would think it would be wise to at least delay the health care "reform" that's very quickly turning into a single most divisive issue in the country.

But no! That's not the Chicago style. A headline at Drudge Report informs us:

"NYT: DEMS PLAN TO GO IT ALONE ON HEATHCARE... DEVELOPING... "

I wish I could say the headline under the picture of Obama, Reid and Pelosi: "Own It". Because U.S. taxpayers will end up owning it, whether they like it or not, with virtually no way of undoing it.

Isn't it time we give them a change, instead?

Tweet

White House to Drop Public Option?

Or are they simply changing the label?

According to AP,

White House appears ready to drop 'public option' (8/16/09 AP) [emphasis is mine]

WASHINGTON – Bowing to Republican pressure, President Barack Obama's administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system.

"Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession probably would enrage Obama's liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers."

Health insurance cooperatives??

"With $3 billion to $4 billion in initial support from the government, the co-ops would operate under a national structure with state affiliates, but independent of the government. They would be required to maintain the type of financial reserves that private companies are required to keep in case of unexpectedly high claims."

So the "seed money" to the tune of $4 billion to be paid by taxpayers (whether the taxpayers like it or not; I've seen much higher numbers, too) will create these co-ops, national structure with state affiliates (i.e. structure clearly mandated by the government) but "independent of the government" - you mean like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (government-sponsored enterprise) independent, or Social Security Administration ("independent agency" of the government) independent?

If it walks, talks, quacks like a duck, it is a duck, and the duck is called "the government".

The mastermind behind this co-op plan is Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), Chairman of the Budget Committee and a member of the Finance Committee.

"Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, called the argument for a government-run public plan little more than a "wasted effort." He added there are enough votes in the Senate for a cooperative plan.

""It's not government-run and government-controlled," he said. "It's membership-run and membership-controlled. But it does provide a nonprofit competitor for the for-profit insurance companies, and that's why it has appeal on both sides.""

Mr. Conrad thinks it is membership-run when the government provides $4 billion dollars and the board appointed by the Health Secretary dictates the national and state structures. He dare calls it "a competitor" for the for-profit insurance companies. Talk about unlevel playing field. But clearly Mr. Conrad and his supporters on both sides of the isle at Congress don't seem to care a bit.

"Obama, writing in Sunday's New York Times, said political maneuvers should be excluded from the debate.

""In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain," he wrote. "But for all the scare tactics out there, what's truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing.""

At this point, I have no idea what the President is babbling about. Cynics and naysayers? They are the people who don't want to fund your grandiose projects with their hard-earned dollars. Scare tactics? You mean the actual sections and subsections of the bill H.R. 3200 that an increasing number of taxpayers are actually reading? They are scary indeed. As for "doing nothing", I have a feeling that if this bill dies, Dow Jones Industrial Average, which has lagged the other indices around the world, will do a very rapid catch-up by jumping 3, 5% in a day.

(Mr. President, didn't you say just about the same thing when you rammed through the so-called "stimulus" package back in February, that if Congress did nothing it would be a catastrophe? And as soon as it was passed and the stock market tanked afresh in response, you recommended Americans buy stocks because they were cheap.)

The AP article then mentions Section 1233 (Advanced Care Planning) of the House health care bill H.R. 3200:

"Congress' proposals, however, seemed likely to strike end-of-life counseling sessions. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has called the session "death panels," a label that has drawn rebuke from her fellow Republicans as well as Democrats.

"Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, declined to criticize Palin's comments and said Obama wants to create a government-run panel to advise what types of care would be available to citizens.
"In all honesty, I don't want a bunch of nameless, faceless bureaucrats setting health care for my aged citizens in Utah," Hatch said. "

"Sebelius [Health Secretary] said the end-of-life proposal was likely to be dropped from the final bill."

Is the Secretary saying this because this particular section has caused such an uproar throughout the country, or was the section merely a trial balloon from the beginning, a bait, if you will, to lure the critics and brand them "evil-mongers" and "un-American" - if they get away with it, great; if not, no big deal?

I wouldn't hold my breath.

What about other monstrosities like:

• Section 141 Presidential appointee to run Health Choices Administration, that will decide every aspect of the health care for the "rest of us" (remember, Congress will be exempt)
• Section 163 The government will have direct electronic access to your bank account to make sure you have money to pay for the service
• Section 401 Surtax for people without health care plan that is "acceptable to the government" (who knows what's "acceptable" to the government?)
• All the porks scattered throughout to fund "community-based" activities (there's no definition of "community" but you can make a good guess).

The whole bill should be ditched, as far as I'm concerned. While we're at it, ditch the climate bill, ditch the financial "reform" bill, too. We simply cannot afford it. Even if we can afford it, what's being offered is the worst possible solution that will increase the government intrusion into private lives and further disrupt the market.

Tweet

Camille Paglia on Health Care "Reform"

Let's hear also from an Obama supporter and a Democrat, albeit an unorthodox one.

Here's Camille Paglia's article on Salon.

Obama's healthcare horror: Heads should roll -- beginning with Nancy Pelosi's! (8/12/09 Salon.com) [emphasis is mine]

She starts by affirming her support for President Obama (I don't know why she feels it necessary to do so, but...):

"Aug. 12, 2009 Buyer's remorse? Not me. At the North American summit in Guadalajara this week, President Obama resumed the role he is best at -- representing the U.S. with dignity and authority abroad. This is why I, for one, voted for Obama and continue to support him. The damage done to U.S. prestige by the feckless, buffoonish George W. Bush will take years to repair. Obama has barely begun the crucial mission that he was elected to do."

And then,

"Having said that, I must confess my dismay bordering on horror at the amateurism of the White House apparatus for domestic policy. When will heads start to roll? I was glad to see the White House counsel booted, as well as Michelle Obama's chief of staff, and hope it's a harbinger of things to come. Except for that wily fox, David Axelrod, who could charm gold threads out of moonbeams, Obama seems to be surrounded by juvenile tinhorns, bumbling mediocrities and crass bully boys."

Here we go (but does she ever reflect that "juvenile tinhorns, bumbling mediocrities and crass bully boys" are there because their boss perhaps wants them to be there?), now she's talkin'.

"Case in point: the administration's grotesque mishandling of healthcare reform, one of the most vital issues facing the nation. Ever since Hillary Clinton's megalomaniacal annihilation of our last best chance at reform in 1993 (all of which was suppressed by the mainstream media when she was running for president), Democrats have been longing for that happy day when this issue would once again be front and center.

"But who would have thought that the sober, deliberative Barack Obama would have nothing to propose but vague and slippery promises -- or that he would so easily cede the leadership clout of the executive branch to a chaotic, rapacious, solipsistic Congress? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom I used to admire for her smooth aplomb under pressure, has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens. She is doing grievous damage to the party and should immediately step down."

So far, however, her criticism is targeted toward the handling of the bill by the Dems, not the bill itself. But hang on...

"... The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation since the Bush administration snookered the country into invading Iraq with apocalyptic visions of mushroom clouds over American cities.

"You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you're happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing.

"I just don't get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.

"As with the massive boondoggle of the stimulus package, which Obama foolishly let Congress turn into a pork rut, too much has been attempted all at once; focused, targeted initiatives would, instead, have won wide public support. How is it possible that Democrats, through their own clumsiness and arrogance, have sabotaged healthcare reform yet again? Blaming obstructionist Republicans is nonsensical because Democrats control all three branches of government. It isn't conservative rumors or lies that are stopping healthcare legislation; it's the justifiable alarm of an electorate that has been cut out of the loop and is watching its representatives construct a tangled labyrinth for others but not for themselves. No, the airheads of Congress will keep their own plush healthcare plan -- it's the rest of us guinea pigs who will be thrown to the wolves.

"What does either party stand for these days? Republican politicians, with their endless scandals, are hardly exemplars of traditional moral values. Nor have they generated new ideas for healthcare, except for medical savings accounts, which would be pathetically inadequate in a major crisis for anyone earning at or below a median income.

"And what do Democrats stand for, if they are so ready to defame concerned citizens as the "mob" -- a word betraying a Marie Antoinette delusion of superiority to ordinary mortals. I thought my party was populist, attentive to the needs and wishes of those outside the power structure. And as a product of the 1960s, I thought the Democratic party was passionately committed to freedom of thought and speech.

"But somehow liberals have drifted into a strange servility toward big government, which they revere as a godlike foster father-mother who can dispense all bounty and magically heal all ills. The ethical collapse of the left was nowhere more evident than in the near total silence of liberal media and Web sites at the Obama administration's outrageous solicitation to private citizens to report unacceptable "casual conversations" to the White House. [Please read my post (first link) on the subject.] If Republicans had done this, there would have been an angry explosion by Democrats from coast to coast. I was stunned at the failure of liberals to see the blatant totalitarianism in this incident, which the president should have immediately denounced. His failure to do so implicates him in it."

Phew. Ms. Paglia should have voted for Ron Paul instead of BO.

The page 2 of this Salon article talks about Sarah Palin's "death panel" remarks, which I thought interesting:

"As a libertarian and refugee from the authoritarian Roman Catholic church of my youth, I simply do not understand the drift of my party toward a soulless collectivism. This is in fact what Sarah Palin hit on in her shocking image of a "death panel" under Obamacare that would make irrevocable decisions about the disabled and elderly. When I first saw that phrase, headlined on the Drudge Report, I burst out laughing. It seemed so over the top! But on reflection, I realized that Palin's shrewdly timed metaphor spoke directly to the electorate's unease with the prospect of shadowy, unelected government figures controlling our lives. A death panel not only has the power of life and death but is itself a symptom of a Kafkaesque brave new world where authority has become remote, arbitrary and spectral. And as in the Spanish Inquisition, dissidence is heresy, persecuted and punished."

and

"What was needed for reform was an in-depth analysis, buttressed by documentary evidence, of waste, fraud and profiteering in the healthcare, pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Instead what we've gotten is a series of facile, vulgar innuendos about how doctors conduct their practice, as if their primary motive is money. Quite frankly, the president gives little sense of direct knowledge of medical protocols; it's as if his views are a tissue of hearsay and scattershot worst-case scenarios."

She sure packs quite a punch.

Tweet

Obama's Death Panels

(Be sure to read other posts on H.R. 3200 health care "reform" by clicking here.)

A perspective on attacks on "death panels" comments, from Lew Rockwell, from Lewrockwell.com's LRC Blog:

"On Morning Joe today, all the Republicans employed by the Obama regime via MSNBC were united with the Dems in chastizing Sarah Palin for her coment that Obamacare would lead to death panels promoting euthanasia and infanticide of the “unfit.” How could the mobs possibly think this? After all, Obama supports federal funding for killing the unborn, and his plan will massively expand this program. He sends his predator drones to kill those unfit for life, according to his calculus, in Afghanistan. He supports a war in Iraq that has taken a million lives. He has ethnically cleansed millions in Pakistan. He is the product of an ideological movement that is pro-euthanasia. Of course, Obamacare will eventuate in killing people. As to Sarah, her smart and courageous comment simply builds her support."

I'm not sure about his last sentence. I am not for or against her, but I think she's better off keeping quiet for a while. There are a lot of people who are against the bill or sections of the bill, who are not ardent Republican or neoconservative supporters, but she is conveniently used by the supporters of the bill to paint the opposition as "right-wing".

Tweet