20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

With House Democrats poised to pass the Senate health care bill with some reconciliation changes later today, it is worthwhile to take a comprehensive look at the freedoms we will lose.

Of course, the overhaul is supposed to provide us with security. But it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care. We may be about to live Benjamin Franklin’s adage, “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”

The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.

Read more

UNDERSTANDING THE NEW HEALTH RECONCILIATION BILL

Frm Keith Hennessey, former senior White House economic advisor to President George W. Bush: Since things are moving quickly, I’m going to repeatedly update this post. You might want to bookmark it and return for updates...

HAT TIP: Instapundit

More Obamacare Follies

The Healthcare Follies

BREAKING: Democrats release 2300-page reconciliation bill

*Updated* - Included in the bill appears to be the “public option” that was removed from the Senate bill.

Reconcile this

ObamaCare

The House Vote on the Senate Healthcare Bill Is the Final Vote; Obama Will Sign It Into Law

Americans need to understand the devastating significance of the House vote on the Senate health care bill set for March 18th. The Democrats have–by design–created the perfect storm to take over the US healthcare system, while providing an ideal distraction–reconciliation.

HAT TIP: RiehlWorldView

SCARY: "If the House passes the Senate bill, Obama will sign the bill if reconciliation fails."

From one of the most savvy political bloggers around whom I dearly hope is wrong this time: Prediction: Obama Will Sign Senate Bill If Reconciliation Fails

What Obama REALLY said...

The video thus displays both Obama's moral vanity as well as his blatant hypocrisy. What an unlovely combination...

What "reconciliation" actually IS

For the Record:

"For those not versed in the arcane rules of the U.S. Senate, reconciliation is not what a divorced couple attempts when they visit Dr. Phil. It is a mechanism for avoiding filibusters on certain budgetary issues. If Democrats can find a way to apply it to health care reform, they could pass a bill with just 51 votes, negating the election of Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown and the loss of the 60-seat supermajority.

Reconciliation was established in 1974 to make it easier for Congress to adjust taxes and spending in order to 'reconcile' actual revenues and expenditures with a previously approved budget resolution. Thus, at the end of the year, if Congress found that it was running a budget deficit higher than previously projected, it could quickly raise taxes or cut spending to bring the budget back into line. Debate on such measures was abbreviated to just 20 hours (an eyeblink in Senate terms), and there could be no filibuster.

As Robert Byrd, (D-W.V.), one of the original authors of the reconciliation rule, explained, 'Reconciliation was intended to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits ... [I]t was not designed to ... restructure the entire health care system.' He warns that using reconciliation for health care would 'violate the intent and spirit of the budget process, and do serious injury to the Constitutional role of the Senate.'

In fact, in 1985, the Senate adopted the 'Byrd rule,' which prohibits the use of reconciliation for any 'extraneous issue' that does not directly change revenues or expenditures. Clearly, large portions of the health care bill, ranging from mandates to insurance regulation to establishing 'exchanges,' do not meet that requirement."

--Cato Institute senior fellow Michael D. Tanner

Received from PatriotPost.us

Democrats change their minds about naked power grab--busy disrobing as we speak

Videos catch them in their hypocrisies...

Why are we asking a government health care bureaucracy that cannot even prevent mass victimization of the citizenry to take on even more responsibility over the people it so poorly serves?

The Avandia report arrives at exactly the right time to raise again the fundamental doubts about Obamacare just as the Left is readying one last push to jam this disaster down our throats. If the federal government cannot spot even killer drugs, it ought not be tasked with vastly expanded authority over our lives.

Read more at the Washington Examiner

IMPORTANT HEALTHCARE UPDATE

Doing it the Right Way: Last week, President and CEO of the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) John Goodman and Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the House, responded to President Obama's call for "better ideas" by offering Ten GOP Health Ideas for Obama. Published in The Wall Street Journal, Goodman and Gingrich's ideas included a number of sensible solutions, such as encouraging more equitable tax treatment of health insurance, increasing portability and eliminating junk law suits.

Goodman/Gingrich Blog for Health Care Summit: In a bid to break the logjam on health reform, the President will convene a health care "summit" on February 25. He has invited Republicans and Democrats alike to participate. Although there is some question about what the summit can accomplish and whether it will serve any purpose other than political grandstanding, both Republicans and Democrats say they will come prepared to debate health reform. John Goodman and Newt Gingrich will be hosting a blog discussion in the days leading up to the summit, as well as a continuous, live blog during the summit.

Sneaky, Sneaky, Sneaky: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is at it again. Late last week, Pelosi announced that Democrats "have set the stage" for reconciliation. Pelosi's proposed use of reconciliation, a legislative tactic which would empower 50 Senators-rather than 60-to pass ObamaCare, is viewed by many Americans as dirty politics. Amazingly, even Pelosi's senior health advisor, Wendell Primus, referred to the reconciliation process as a trick. Here's how Pelosi's sordid strategy would work:

Step 1: The House Passes "Fixes." As of late 2009, both House and Senate had passed versions of health care legislation. However, these versions differed in several important respects. To move past this impasse, House Democrats would get the ball rolling by passing a number of modifications to the Senate version of health care reform.

Step 2: The Senate Passes the "Fixes." Senate Democrats would follow Pelosi's lead, endorsing the House's modifying legislation and sending it to the President's desk.

Step 3: The House Passes the Senate Bill. House Democrats would then pass the Senate version of health care reform as it is-thus bypassing the need for a subsequent Senate vote-and offer it to the President for signature or veto.

Step 4: The President Signs (and Combines). In an unprecedented lawmaking slight-of-hand, the President would sign the Senate version of health care and subsequently sign the modifying legislation, the "fixes."

The reconciliation process is an arcane budgetary process, used traditionally to reconcile the differences between expected revenues (taxes) and expenditures (spending). Customarily, lawmakers pass legislation and, if reconciliation is required, subsequently pass modifying bills. As an approach to the legislative process, reconciliation is rarely used and, more importantly, has never been used in the way that Pelosi proposes. Pelosi's stratagem fails the 'what's right' test in two meaningful ways:

• Procedure: Reconciliation Bypasses Senate Rules. Reconciliation would deprive Senators of the opportunity to fully participate in the legislative process. The Senate has long-held that 60 votes are required to pass substantive law. Now, Pelosi and Reid are trying to avoid that rule because of political expediency. Simply put, that's not right.
• Substance: Reconciliation Bypasses Senate Debate. While Republicans as well as Democrats have used reconciliation in the past, it's never been used for legislation of the cost and scale of health care reform. For many Americans, health care reform is literally a matter of life-and-death; they deserve a comprehensive debate of the issues in the bill.

The Final Wave! Thanks to your support, the NCPA has now entered its third wave of communication targeted to fence-sitting members of Congress. The third wave focuses on the eleven, self-described 'moderate' House Democrats. While they initially supported ObamaCare, a lot has happened since they cast their vote and they deserve to hear your reasons for opposing government-run health care. Please let your voice be heard:

• Go to Free Our Health Care NOW!
• Enter your personal information and click TAKE ACTION!
• You can write a letter or make a phone call. You can do either; both are important!

Contribute to the Cause! We appreciate your past support and know that without you this fight wouldn't be possible. You can donate online or send a check to: National Center for Policy Analysis P.O. Box 650098 Dallas, Texas 75265-0098 Thank you for your continued support of the NCPA. Warm regards, Jeanette Nordstrom National Center for Policy Analysis www.ncpa.org

Healthcare: ENDGAME

It’s a trap...

Uh-Oh: Reconciliation is NOT dead after all

Terminator...The Undead...Westworld...

Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, tells National Review Online that House Democrats are planning to use the budget-reconciliation process in order to pass Obamacare. “They’re meeting with each other this weekend to pursue it,” says Ryan. “I’ve spoken with many Democrats and the message is this: They’re not ready to give up. They’ve waited their entire adult lives for this moment and they aren’t ready to let 100,000 pesky votes in Massachusetts get in the way of fulfilling their destiny. They’ll look at every option and spend the next four or five days figuring it out.”

Read more

TPM says I've been poking around some sources in Washington, DC (and combining this with what I've heard from our TPMDC team) and my sense is that Health Care Reform is both dead and not dead. Let's say it's among the Undead.

Update: Health Care Legislation

House and Senate Negotiations:

Senate Passes Reform Bill: At 7:05 a.m. on Christmas Eve, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., along with 59 other Senate members voted to pass reform legislation that would expand health coverage to approximately 31 million people at a cost of $871 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The bill passed on party-lines (60-39), without a single Republican vote. Republicans believe the bill would impose many regulatory and financial burdens on taxpayers and businesses, and would swell government debt.

Reconciliation Poses Difficult Road Ahead: Before lawmakers can present a final health care reform bill to President Obama, the approved Senate bill needs to be merged with the House version passed in Nov. 2009, which extends coverage to 36 million Americans for a cost of about $1 trillion. However, the bills have some major differences that will need to be addressed as lawmakers shape the final package, including:

* Insurance market reform and Exchanges -- Both bills would bar insurers from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions and from dropping coverage for those who get sick. They both would also create insurance exchanges that would allow small businesses and individuals to shop for insurance. However, the Senate bill would create state-based exchanges, whereas the House bill would create a national exchange with an option for states to run their own programs if they meet certain requirements.

* The government-run plan -- A government-run plan was a central component to the House bill. The Senate bill would instead direct the U.S. Office of Personnel Management to contract with private insurance companies to offer policies on the exchanges. Despite much commotion over the need to include the public option, House leaders conceded Tuesday that they may be willing to agree to a bill without a public option if other parts of the bill fulfill the same goals, and they hope to expand available subsidies.

* Reform financing -- With a price tag of approximately $1 trillion, Members of the House would pay for the reform effort through a 5.4 percent surtax on individuals making more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million and by imposing a 2.5 percent excise tax on medical devices. Members of the Senate, on the other hand, plan to pay for their $871 billion plan through a 40 percent excise tax on high-cost health insurance plans; an increase in payroll taxes for Medicare on individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000 per year; fees on insurers, medical device manufacturers and drug companies; and, a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning. On Wednesday, President Obama expressed his preference for the insurance tax contained in the Senate bill, however this provision is strongly opposed by labor unions.

* Coverage Mandates -- Both bills require that individuals obtain health insurance and would impose a penalty on those who do not. The House bill also includes an employer mandate for companies with payrolls above $750,000. The Senate bill, however, does not include this mandate and would require companies with more than 50 employees to pay a fine if employees obtain federally subsidized coverage on the insurance exchange.

* Medicaid expansion -- Both bills expand Medicaid. The Senate bill makes Medicaid available to those with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty level, whereas the House allows for coverage for those with incomes up to 150 percent of the poverty level.

* Abortion -- Both bills bar the use of federal funds for abortions; however, the House bill includes stricter language requiring anyone seeking abortion coverage to buy separate insurance riders. The Senate bill would allow states to choose whether or not to include plans with abortion coverage in the insurance exchange and would require those with abortion coverage to write a separate check for this insurance.

President Obama Pushes Swift Action: In a meeting at the White House Tuesday, President Obama encouraged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who participated via phone, to bypass the traditional conference committee used to negotiate reconciliation in the interest of time. The move creates a three-way negotiating construct involving top Democrats in the House and Senate and the White House and will exclude Republican lawmakers from the debate and reduce their ability to delay the voting.

Further, President Obama indicated that he would be taking a hands-on approach to the final stages of the negotiations. The President held another meeting with leading Democrats on Wednesday to help iron out the differences between the House and Senate bills. Democrats also held a meeting and conference call on Thursday to discuss how reconciliation will proceed and some of the priorities for the final bill.

HEALTH ACTION NETWORK

George Will on Dems: Lawlessness, Situational Constitutionalism, Institutional Derangement

Jefferson warned that "great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities." But Democrats, who trace their party's pedigree to Jefferson, are contemplating using "reconciliation" -- a legislative maneuver abused by both parties to severely truncate debate and limit the minority's right to resist -- to impose vast and controversial changes on the 17 percent of the economy that is health care. When the Congressional Budget Office announced that the president's budget underestimates by $2.3 trillion the likely deficits over the next decade, his budget director, Peter Orszag, said: All long-range budget forecasts are notoriously unreliable -- so rely on ours.

This is but a partial list of recent lawlessness, situational constitutionalism and institutional derangement. Such political malfeasance is pertinent to the financial meltdown as the administration, desperately seeking confidence, tries to stabilize the economy by vastly enlarging government's role in it.

Read the whole thing