PAWaterCooler.com

Believe it or not, I understand and sympathize Chairman Jim Matthews’ reasoning here, which basically amounts to this: If Montco funds prenatal care for the uninsured—most of which are illegal aliens—they will end up saving the hospitals money, since the cost of of a complicated birth can be triple that of a normal birth. Prenatal care can head off most of those complications.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I’m not going to bash Matthews, or the rest of the commissioners, for their stance on this issue; instead I’d like to take this opportunity to point out the very real economic consequences of illegal immigration. Times Herald:

In recent years, Norristown area hospitals have been inundated with Latina women, many of whom have no medical insurance. This year, Montgomery Hospital is projected to deliver more than 1,000 babies, though that number could climb higher, according to local officials. Births skyrocketed this year at the Norristown medical center after Mercy Suburban Hospital in East Norriton closed its obstetrics department.

Why did Mercy Suburban close it’s Obstetrics department?

On average, Montgomery Hospital loses $2,500 for every baby born there and could rack up a total of $16 million in uncompensated care in 2010, according to a hospital official in June.

The statistics on illegal births are elusive and can only be estimated, but those estimates are staggering:

“There’s been anecdotal discussions that nationally right now, as high as 15 percent of all births in the United States are from undocumented mothers, and it is bankrupting out hospitals,” Matthews said.

An estimated 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States in 2008 were the offspring of “unauthorized immigrants,” according to a new analysis of Census Bureau data by the Pew Hispanic Center released in August.

The figures are based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s March 2009 Current Population Survey, augmented with the Pew Hispanic Center’s analysis of the demographic characteristics of the illegal immigrant population in the U.S.

The analysis finds that nearly four in five, or 79 percent, of the 5.1 million children under the age of 18 of unauthorized immigrants were born in this country and therefore are U.S. citizens. In total, 4 million U.S.-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents lived in this country in 2009 alongside 1.1 million foreign-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents.

Accurate estimates of how many Hispanic people live in the Norristown area are elusive, though recent estimates are between 10,000 and 20,000. And though the Norristown medical center is burdened with increasing numbers of uninsured mothers in its obstetrics program, the hospital claims it does not gather data on birth mothers’ immigration status.

“We have births running eight to 12 on a daily basis in Montgomery County in Montgomery Hospital,” Matthews said. “Two weeks ago, there was 13 one day, and the previous Thursday nine or 10, and there’s no (insurance) money.”

Anyone who says that opposition to illegal immigration is rooted solely in bigotry should read this article as many times as it takes to have it sink in. Uninsured illegals are not only bankrupting our hospitals, but they are driving up the cost of insurance for the responsible members of society who are here legally and are insured, since health care providers need to make up the lost revenue somehow. It is federal law that anyone who shows up in a hospital emergency room cannot be turned away from care, yet we are supposed to believe that rising healthcare costs are the fault of greedy insurance companies.

Perhaps if illegal immigrants were denied free healthcare, they wouldn’t be so quick to come to this country. Yet denying healthcare to anyone in need would be inhumane and go against our basic American altruistic spirit. So what is the answer? The Montco Commissioners are stuck between a rock and a hard place, opting instead for the lesser of two evils in order to minimize the economic impact to taxpayers.

Yet our federal government, the very organization that is specifically charged with protecting and enforcing our borders, chooses to ignore this crisis, demonize those who want it addressed, and instead, expand into the healthcare business precisely because of a “crisis” that it helps to create by ignoring and abetting illegal immigration. 

This, not bigotry, is the reason that there is a movement afoot to amend the 14th amendment. 

Email LisaMossie, Join the other 3 commenters or Share This...

What, you were expecting a 2,000 plus page law to make things simpler for you?

It’s worth a click to bounce on over to the pdf of this chart just so you can zoom in on it and actually see what this mess means. The chart is genius in that it actually references the exact part of the bill that creates each stop on the flow chart. Kevin Hasset explains how precient Nancy Pelosi was in saying that they’d have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it, and now that we’re finding it out, how very, very bad it is:

This clearly is a candidate for most disorganized organizational chart ever. It shows that the health system is complex, yes, but also ornate. The new law creates 68 grant programs, 47 bureaucratic entities, 29 demonstration or pilot programs, six regulatory systems, six compliance standards and two entitlements.

Getting that massive enterprise up and running will be next to impossible. So Democrats streamlined the process by granting Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius the authority to make judgments that can’t be challenged either administratively or through the courts.

This monarchical protection from challenges is extended as well to the development of new patient-care models under Obama’s controversial recess appointment, Donald Berwick, whom Republicans are calling the rationer-in-chief. Berwick will run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, where he can experiment with ways to use administrative fiat to move our system toward the socialized medicine of Europe, which he has at times embraced.

Closer to Home

A sprawling, complex bureaucracy has been set up that will have almost absolute power to dictate terms for participating in the health-care system. That’s what the law does to government. What it does to you is worse.

Based on the administration’s own numbers, as many as 117 million people might have to change their health plans by 2013 as their employer-provided coverage loses its grandfathered status and becomes subject to the new Obamacare mandates.

Those mandates also might make your health care more expensive. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that premiums for a small number of families who buy their insurance privately will rise by as much as $2,100.

The central Obamacare mechanism for increasing insurance coverage is an expansion of the Medicaid program. Of the 30 million new people covered, 16 million will be enrolled in Medicaid. And you could end up in the program whether you want it or not. The bill states that people who apply for coverage through the new exchanges or who apply for premium-subsidy credits will automatically be enrolled in Medicaid if they qualify.

Read it ALL.

Email LisaMossie, Join the other 4 commenters or Share This...

I suppose anyone who disagrees with this is either a racist, a theocrat, or a misogynist. Or maybe all three?

Obama Administration OKs First Tax-Funded Abortions Under Health Care Law

The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new “high-risk” insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March.

It has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of pro-abortion Governor Edward Rendell under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.

The high-risk pool program is one of the new programs created by the sweeping health care legislation, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama signed into law on March 23. The law authorizes $5 billion in federal funds for the program, which will cover as many as 400,000 people when it is implemented nationwide.

“The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million in federal tax funds, which we’ve discovered will pay for insurance plans that cover any legal abortion,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee.

All of this made possible by “pro-life Democrats” pretending that ObamaCare didn’t fund abortions in order to justify voting for it. All of Neptune’s ocean won’t wash this blood from your hands, Bart Stupak.

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

The more you realize just how much bullsh*t it is.

From an email I received today from my flexible spending account provider (emphasis mine):

As you may be aware, the President recently signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the Act). While the broad scope of the Act has been well reported, we want to make sure that you are aware of the effect the law will have on your flexible spending health care account.

First, there is no change until January 1, 2011. However, beginning January 1, 2011, a doctor’s prescription will be required in order for you to receive reimbursement of expenses incurred when purchasing certain commonly used over-the-counter (OTC) medicines like Claritin, Advil and Robitussin cough syrup. Because the new law requires a prescription for these types of items before we can reimburse you from your account, you will no longer be able to make these purchases using your Health Care Card (Card).

You will continue to be able to use your Card at pharmacies and stores for prescriptions, band-aids and other OTC medical items and at providers for office visits, copayments and eligible health care, vision and dental procedures and services.

We want to emphasize that the change will not take place until January 1, 2011. Until that date, you can still use your Card for all eligible OTC items without a doctor’s prescription.

Well, thank goodness Obamacare is not going to require a prescription for BandAids! But can someone please explain how forcing doctors to write prescriptions for medications that are currently available without a prescription is going to SAVE money? How will that cut down on unnecessary doctor’s office visits or paperwork?

Email LisaMossie, Join the other 2 commenters or Share This...

CNN has a story about stem cells being used in an experiment in an attempt to develop a treatment for Lou Gehrig’s Disease.

There are some important facts learned when you read this story. They are:

-The stem cells used in this experiment came from an aborted unborn child.

-The stem cells were from the spinal cord of an 8 week gestation fetus (how does a blob of tissue have a spinal cord?)

-The experiment is being done at Emory University in Georgia. Emory is a private university.

-The experiment is being funded by Neuralstem, a private company.

Some other important facts about stem cell research:

-Contrary to popular belief, no form of stem cell research has ever been banned in the United States.

-No politician that I know of has ever advocated the ban of any kind of stem cell research. I find this unfortunate, since I advocate the ban of scientific experimentation on unborn children.

-Prior to Obama’s election, the federal government was not allowed to spend our federal tax dollars on any research which destroyed unborn children. Any other form of stem cell research was acceptable to be funded by federal tax dollars.

-It has always been legal for private universities and businesses to take part in ANY form of stem cell research. Neuralstem could have done this experiment at Emory prior to Obama’s election.

Keep all of that in mind as I quote from the enlightened liberal commentors from CNN’s website as they voice their “thoughts” on stem cell research:

This one thought stem cell research was banned under Bush:

I applaud Obama for overturning the ban on stem cell research

Another one who thought stem cell research was prohibited:

Wow, are they finally allowed to do something with stem cells?

This one, who obviously didn’t read the article, chided a pro-lifer who objected to the use of an aborted fetus for this experiment:

You do know stem cell research comes from in virto fertilization right?

Another one who didn’t read the article:

I’m shocked at the low level of education on this page! Some of these stem cells come from the umbilical cord fluid after a child is born. Nobody is killing anybody! This fluid is going to be thrown away… I say if its going to help someone, then by all means use it.

This one owns a 150+ year old Biology textbook which claims that sperm are tiny humans:

But once they get the cell line growing they can grow cells forever from it. The original cells was from an embryo. But how much eggs and sperms go to waste every day and did the one that started this line go to waste? Religious nuts really need to go away.

Numerous ignorant anti-religious bigots who don’t know the difference between their rectum and a hole in the ground chimed in with their stupid comments:

My step-dad is a Christian, yet he is all for stem cell research. This, in my opinion, shows that religion isn’t bad, but that religious extremists are. Unfortunately for us, there are so many of these extremists that they selfishly affect the country’s infrastructure for the benefit of their simple beliefs.

This one says Christians are FASCISTS! We should all get T-Shirts with “FASCIST!” written on them!

This example clearly demonstrates how Christianity is a fascist organization intent on infringing upon my rights to better health care options based on their half baked religious notions. It also shows once again that religion is not the least bit interested in easing suffering.

This one is hopelessly lost:

Very true, the church tried to stop Galileo and today we are talking about deep space exploration.

And this one is my favorite. A pro-lifer said, “Take care everyone. Remember to “Choose Life – Your Mother Did”. Peace be with you.” To which someone replied:

And if you Mother “Didn’t Choose Life” how would you ever know???

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

(1) Economists agree: the stimulus didn’t help. Who’da thunk it?

(2) Of course Obamacare is going to cost more than they told us. Anticipating startling insurance rate hikes, Congress is in “CYA” mode, looking at price controls on health insurance. Because that always works out well.

(3) Oh look, Rendell’s corporate welfare deal for Harley-Davidson isn’t working out so well.  Go figure.

(4) Pennsylvania spends a lot on legislative staff.

(5) National Review editorial: “The Case Against the Dodd Bill“.  (Why is Chris Dodd in charge of anything?)

(6) Lest we get too excited about Republicans, Rep. Lewis (CA-41) says the earmark moratorium was “symbolic”. (Just FYI, Lewis has been a member of Congress longer than I’ve been alive.)

Email Joe Collins, Start the discussion or Share This...

And so it begins.

Arizona Dermatologist is the Latest to Quit the Profession

Letter from a Doctor who Will Not Comply

Doctors Set to Quit in the Wake of Obamacare

Paging Mr. Galt. Mr. John Galt. Please pick up the white courtesy phone.

Email Fred Mullner, Start the discussion or Share This...

The AP has this timely story, which appeared two days ago:

Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it’s simply somebody else’s problem.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That’s according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

Most people still are required to file returns by the April 15 deadline. The penalty for skipping it is limited to the amount of taxes owed, but it’s still almost always better to file: That’s the only way to get a refund of all the income taxes withheld by employers.

In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.

Tax cuts enacted in the past decade have been generous to wealthy taxpayers, too, making them a target for President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress. Less noticed were tax cuts for low- and middle-income families, which were expanded when Obama signed the massive economic recovery package last year.

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.

For those of you who haven’t quite “gotten” what the current administration is all about, Byron York explains the ulterior motive of Health Care Reform in his weekly column by using the liberals own words:

Health reform is “an income shift,” Democratic Sen. Max Baucus said on March 25. “It is a shift, a leveling, to help lower-income, middle-income Americans.”

In his halting, jumbled style, Baucus explained that in recent years, “the maldistribution of income in America has gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle-income class is left behind.” The new healthcare legislation, Baucus promised, “will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution of income in America.”

At about the same time, Howard Dean, the former Democratic National Committee chairman and presidential candidate, said the health bill was needed to correct economic inequities. “The question is, in a democracy, what is the right balance between those at the top … and those at the bottom?” Dean said during an appearance on CNBC. “When it gets out of whack, as it did in the 1920s, and it has now, you need to do some redistribution. This is a form of redistribution.”

Summing things up in the New York Times, the liberal economics columnist David Leonhardt called Obamacare “the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago.”

What does this all mean for you? Stephan Tawney writing at the American Pundit (via Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt Newsletter) sums it up nicely:

Unless something changes to even out the financial to even out the financial load, we’re witnessing the beginning of the end of the republic. You simply can’t maintain this country with a majority able to vote for the minority to pay for everything. You can’t have a majority with no financial interest in the federal government and who runs it. Imagine a future where a minority of Americans have to pay all of the taxes but don’t have enough political power to determine who runs the nation. The majority, with no financial interest in maintaining limited government or smaller budgets, would keep electing leaders who promise to take even more money from the minority to give to the majority. The tax-free majority would, effectively, keep voting itself free services and in general more money from the minority. The minority would be locked into funding everything the majority wants, unable to overcome the political power of the majority moocher class.

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

Attorney General Corbett’s Health Care Lawsuit: No Conflict Of Interest

The idiocy of some people never ceases to amaze.

For the latest example, just look how the political hacks reacted to the recent week of Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett.

First, Corbett’s office was successful in prosecuting former state representative Mike Veon and two others in the Bonusgate scandal, bringing the total number of felony convictions in that corruption investigation to ten. Veon and his cronies were convicted on numerous charges related to using taxpayer money for political campaigns.

Taxpayer money is, in fact, the people’s hard-earned cash that is sent to Harrisburg for the purposes of good government. Using it for anything else, especially campaign activities, is an atrocious breach of the public’s trust.

So sending someone like Veon away with a case of Soap-on-a-Rope should be considered a good thing by all sane and rational Pennsylvanians. Score one for the good guys —-us.

Later in the week, Corbett sued the federal government over the passage of health care legislation.
He didn’t do this as a partisan Republican, attacking a Democratic health care bill.

No, his decision was rooted in something much more basic: his belief that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to usurp the rights of the state, and force citizens to purchase health care — or risk fines and jail.

Wow. Call me crazy, but isn’t that what a state Attorney General is supposed to do — protect the citizens of his state from criminals and unconstitutional laws?

One would think that in these two instances, the political opponents of Tom Corbett could put partisan politics aside and compliment the man for a job well done. After all, the business-as-usual approach to government in Pennsylvania — AKA corruption — suffered a major blow, and our state’s citizens finally have someone fighting for them and their interests.

One would be wrong.

Instead, many Democratic leaders sounded the all-too-trite call that Corbett’s actions were a conflict of interest, since he is the leading Republican candidate for governor. This man, they say, is only pursuing these issues to generate favorable headlines and increase name recognition around the state.

How original.

And stupid.

What the Democrats don’t understand is that the more they call attention to Corbett’s actions, the more they lose. Maybe their arguments make the “political insider crowd” happy, but in the real world, where elections are decided, they could not be more off base.

(For more on whether Bonusgate is a fair investigation or politically motivated, watch the author debate the issue on TV’s Business Matters—

http://www.freindlyfirezone.com/index.php/component/k2/item/34-freind-on-tv-corbetts-bonusgate-investigation-politics-or-fair-prosecution?

*****
I’ll give you one guess who the leading Democrat is calling on Corbett to drop his lawsuit. You got it….Governor Rendell. Our obtuse, and soon to be ex-governor, seems to have nothing better to do than stick his nose where it doesn’t belong.

Read the rest at FreindlyFireZone:

http://www.freindlyfirezone.com/index.php/component/k2/item/35-attorney-general-corbett’s-health-care-lawsuit-no-conflict-of-interest

Chris Freind is an independent columnist and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris’ recent bestseller “Catastrophe.”

Freind also serves as a weekly guest commentator on the Philadelphia-area talk radio show, Political Talk (WCHE 1520), and makes numerous other television and radio appearances. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Email Chris Freind, Start the discussion or Share This...

The sneering and cynical chatter I’m hearing from the left wing about the constitutional challenge being mounted by 14 (and counting) State Attorneys General is that it’s nothing more than a politically motivated stunt for AG’s trying to placate the “teabagging tea partier” wing of their party. That it’s a waste of taxpayer money (money better spent on abortions, no doubt). That winning this suit will somehow turn over a hundred years of settled law (this commenter definitely went to the Barack Obama Correspondence School of Misrepresenting Supreme Court Decisions and TV/VCR Repair). And that conservatives don’t have a monopoly on reading the Constitution.

What I have not heard from anyone on the left is by what authority the federal government can compel its citizens to purchase a product.

So does the lawsuit have merit? Attorney Peter Kirasow on The Corner says there’s no reason to be so pessimistic about it’s chances of success :

Sure, taking a Commerce Clause challenge to the Supreme Court isn’t a cakewalk. Standing, ripeness, etc., issues may prove as nettlesome as the merits of the case. But the likelihood that the state attorneys general will succeed is far from remote.

Yes, courts have accorded Congress significant, sometimes baffling, latitude under the Commerce Clause (even Scalia in Gonzalez v. Raich yields to Congress due to the broadening effect of the Necessary and Proper Clause). But in each of the cases cited most often by defenders of Obamacare’s constitutionality — Wickard v. Filburn, U.S. v. Darby, Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S., Perez v. U.S., etc. — Congress was regulating an activity affecting interstate commerce. Defenders of Obamacare’s individual mandate will be placed in the unprecedented position of urging that Congress can regulate inactivity, i.e., a manifest refusal to engage in commerce, because of such inactivity’s attenuated bearing on commerce. Such an elastic interpretation of the Commerce Clause would permit Congress to regulate anything and everything. Couch potatoes beware.

The Necessary and Proper Clause to which Scalia resorts in Raich is, perhaps, the best resort for Obamacare defenders. Essentially, that clause permits Congress to regulate intrastate economic activities where necessary to make interstate commerce more effective. Yet the problem for Obamacare defenders remains: Inactivity isn’t activity.

Even if, as some Obamacare defenders maintain, the failure of some Americans to engage in commercial activity (purchasing health insurance) could arguably affect overall medical and insurance costs — and potentially frustrate a national health-care scheme — the fact remains that the aggregated impact of such failure is still the result of commercial inactivity.

If Congress can force individuals to purchase a product because the cumulative effect of such purchases will (purportedly) reduce health-insurance costs nationwide, then what prevents Congress from mandating the purchase of vitamins, gym memberships, green tea, or hand sanitizers? No doubt, if it can be shown empirically that an apple a day does keep the doctor away, then apple growers could lobby Congress to mandate the purchase of Granny Smiths.

Surely, Madison would approve.

Iain Murray sees a connection between the Obamacare constitutionality issue and the newly announced automobile CAFE standards:

With the principle that the Federal Government can mandate that individuals purchase something now established with the Obamacare Act (although that too is unconstitutional, as my colleague Hans Bader explains), how long before we see an act of Congress aimed at forcing Americans to buy unsafe but fuel-efficient vehicles?

Via Taranto, USA Today’s Jonathan Turley is not so quick to dismiss:

Though the federal government has the clear advantage in such litigation, these challenges should not be dismissed as baseless political maneuvering. There is a legitimate concern for many that this mandate constitutes the greatest (and perhaps the most lethal) challenge to states’ rights in U.S. history.

With this legislation, Congress has effectively defined an uninsured 18-year-old man in Richmond as an interstate problem like a polluting factory. It is an assertion of federal power that is inherently at odds with the original vision of the Framers. If a citizen who fails to get health insurance is an interstate problem, it is difficult to see the limiting principle as Congress seeks to impose other requirements on citizens. The ultimate question may not be how Congress can prevail, but how much of states’ rights would be left if it prevailed.

The Seattle Times Editorial Page, who supported Barack Obama for president seems to think the suit not only has merit, but applauds their own AG for taking up the battle:

Opponents imply there is something outrageous in challenging a new law. It is not outrageous. It is part of the American system. Think of the Tim Eyman tax initiatives. Almost all the ones that passed have been challenged.

(…)

The law calls its mandate a tax. But if you comply, your money goes to the insurance company. You pay the government only if you don’t comply — which means, McKenna says, “It’s not a tax. It’s a fine.”

We think McKenna has a good case, and one the progressives who condemn him ought to appreciate. These critics are so often right about the dangers of corporate power, and particularly the rapacity of insurance companies.

But if it’s federal power, and it’s for a social purpose, and Barack Obama is presiding over it, they set their judgment aside. They accept a 2,000-page bill on its label only. They accept its promise, almost surely vacant, of cost savings. They overlook the deals cut with the insurance and pharmaceutical interests. They shrug off the “cornhusker kickback.” And to those who invoke the Constitution, they become shrill.

It never occurs to these pablum sucking liberals that the Lightworker and his merry band of leftists are not going to be in power forever. What they are betting on is that the GOP will be unable to repeal this thing before the dumb slugs of America become nice and comfy rocking in the ever-lovin’ arms of the Nanny state. They are betting that we’ll be just like France, picketing for more government handouts in no time at all. And they may be right to be smug.

For conservatives pinning their hopes on the tough talk of “Repeal” by sitting Republicans, today was a disheartening day as some of these spineless career politicains started backpedalling away from their tough talk after only a week and a half. Ace of Spades:

10 days! The GOP can’t even muster courage for two whole weeks before they start thinking that maybe, just maybe they are being too strident about the whole health care repeal thing.

Asked if he advises Republican Senate candidates to call for repealing the law, Cornyn said: “Candidates are going to test the winds in their own states. … In some places, the health care bill is more popular than others.”

Cowboy up, GOP.  We’re keeping score and this year there are no points to be gained for “reaching across the aisle” on healthcare.

So, bottom line is that the suit is not a stunt. There’s no doubt that there is political milage to be gained from the right by particiapting in the suit, but that does not automatically mean that the suit is a “stunt”. Hans Bader was making the case for unconstitutionality back on December 29, 2009. This was when the AG’s started corresponding and building their case, before it was clear what the political ramifications of pursuing such a case would be (after all, weren’t the Obami telling us then, and aren’t they insisting now, that we are all gonna LOVE this bill, once we find out what’s in it?) That’s not to say that some AG’s didn’t sign on and others begged off once they did fully understand the ramifications. It’s just to point out that this lawsuit is not simply a kneejerk reaction to placating the conservative base.  The left only wishes it was.

The ramifications of this legislation are enormous and unprecedented. The objections to it are legitimate and the constitutionality is questionable. If it’s such a great law, I wonder why liberals don’t want it to see the inside of a courtroom.

UPDATE:
Too priceless and apropos not to post. If the above is too much to read, Phil Hare (D., IL) offers the condensed version in three glorious minutes:

H/T Ace

Email LisaMossie, Join the discussion or Share This...

The psychopaths over at Media Matters tell us that Krugman was just joking when he said that there were death panels in ObamaCare – that he was pointing out the contradiction in the claims of conservatives.

Then to back up their position, they give us the following quote from Krugman in which he was not joking and he confirms that yes, there are death panels in ObamaCare:

The advisory path, which has the ability to make more or less binding judgments on saying this particular expensive treatment actually doesn’t do any good medically and so we’re not going to pay for it, that is actually going to save quite a lot of money. We don’t know how much yet. The CBO gives it very little credit. But most of the health care economists I talk to think it’s going to be a really major cost saving.

In other words, a group of bureaucrats will decide whether or not you are allowed to receive a certain treatment based on their evaluation of its effectiveness and cost. The decision will be with the government, not the doctor or patient. HELLO, MEDIA MATTERS, WHAT DO YOU THINK A DEATH PANEL IS?!

Here’s the video. You be the judge:

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

The joke’s on you

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

Joe Hoeffel, speaking at a Capitol briefing, questions Attorney General Tom Corbett’s motives for joining the constitutional challenge against Obamacare and disparages a whole movement while he’s at it. From Scott Detrow’s State House Sound Bites:

He [Corbett] has always struck me as a moderate Republican and I think he’s desperately afraid of not satisfying the teabagging tea partiers and looks at Sam Rohrer, who is certainly very sincere in his conservative views and sees a threat

“Teabagging Tea partiers….?”

Link here to hear it from Hoeffel’s own mouth.

So basically, on the off chance that Hoeffel makes it to the Governor’s mansion, Pennsylvania conservatives can expect more of the marginalization and disparagement that the new democrat party has gleefully heaped upon a nationwide movement that dares exercise their first amendment rights. The new democratic party that defines that high holy ideal of “bipartisanship” that was so important when they were out of power simply as “Shut up.  We Won.” And of course, Joe Hoeffel is a big proponent of “bipartisanship:” a bipartisanship that can be defined as trading turning a blind eye to the cronyism of an entrenched politician in exchange for usurping the will of the voters to enact his liberal agenda for a county that voted overwhelmingly for a Republican.

Even if you are not a member of an “official” Tea party movement, polling indicates that a little more than half of the population is in agreement with the Tea Party as far as Obamacare goes.

I’m not sure why liberals have embraced a derogatory term for a homosexual sex act as a way of attempting to disparage, discredit and puerilely make fun of a group of people who believe that our country is losing it’s way. Whatever the reason, there is no doubt that they intend it as a smear.

It’s important to remember that while Tom Corbett is attacking a law and policy that many Pennsylvanians believe is harmful to our freedom, Joe Hoeffel is using an ugly slur to attack the character of the individual voters who support this action.

H/T Bruce Castor’s Facebook Page

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

In addition to the bad news that young adults will be shouldering a significant portion of Obamacare costs through higher enforced enrollment and premiums, Lamar Alexander via Robert Costa on The Corner points out this little gem on college loan funding tucked into the 2,700 page bill:

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), the U.S. secretary of education from 1991 to 1993, tells National Review Online that President Obama’s revamping of the federal student-loan program is “truly brazen” and the “most underreported big-Washington takeover in history.”

“As Americans find out what it really does, they’ll be really unhappy,” Alexander predicts. “The first really unhappy people will be the 19 million students who, after July 1, will have no choice but to go to federal call centers to get their student loans. They’ll become even unhappier when they find out that the government is charging 2.8 percent to borrow the money and 6.8 percent to lend it to the students, and spending the difference on the new health-care bill and other programs. In other words, the government will be overcharging 19 million students.” The overcharge is “significant,” Alexander adds, because “on a $25,000 student loan, which is an average loan, the amount the government will overcharge will average between $1,700 and $1,800.”

“Up to now, 15 out of 19 million student loans were private loans, backed by the government,” Alexander says. “Now we’re going to borrow half-a-trillion from China to pay for billions in new loans. Not only will this add to the debt, but in the middle of a recession, this will throw 31,000 Americans working at community banks and non-profit lenders out of work.”

This “Soviet-style takeover,” as Alexander calls it, will fundamentally change not only the American post secondary education system, which is the best in the world because of competition, but it will “change the kind of country we live in.”

In other words, welcome to hope and change: welcome to mediocrity.

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

They are the ones they have been waiting for. Inky:

Under the health care overhaul, young adults who buy their own insurance will carry a heavier burden of the medical costs of older Americans – a shift expected to raise insurance premiums for young people when the plan takes full effect.

Beginning in 2014, most Americans will be required to buy insurance or pay a tax penalty. That’s when premiums for young adults seeking coverage on the individual market would likely climb by 17 percent on average, or roughly $42 a month, according to an analysis of the plan conducted for the Associated Press. The analysis did not factor in tax credits to help offset the increase.

The higher costs will pinch many people in their 20s and early 30s who are struggling to start or advance their careers with the highest unemployment rate in 26 years.

(…)

The law relies on Higdon and other young adults to shoulder more of the financial load in new health insurance risk pools. So under the new system, Higdon could expect to pay $300 to $500 a year more. Depending on his income, he might also qualify for tax credits.

At issue is the insurance industry’s practice of charging more for older customers, who are the costliest to insure. The new law restricts how much insurers can raise premium costs based on age alone.

Insurers typically charge six or seven times as much to older customers as to younger ones in states with no restrictions. The new law limits the ratio to 3-1, meaning a 50-year-old could be charged only three times as much as a 20-year-old.

The rest will be shouldered by young people in the form of higher premiums.

Hope and Change! Wait until you find out what else is in it. You are gonna LOVE this law!

Email LisaMossie, Join the discussion or Share This...

Written by Roberta Biros

Regardless of who wins the General Election in November, we can all look forward to Ed Rendell’s reign as Governor ending at the end of 2010. Can I hear an Amen!

Let’s be honest. Governor Rendell is nothing short of a Socialist. Please realize that “Socialist” isn’t a term that I’ve ever used in this blog to describe ANYONE. The term was only used once, and it was used by the Chairman of the Mercer County Democrat Committee (Bob Lark) to describe ME (for a good laugh and some insight on my political background on this topic read HERE), but I’ve never used it to describe anyone else. So understand that I don’t make this remark light-heartedly. I make the statement today in direct response to an interview that Governor Rendell had on Fox News this morning, March 29, 2010.

The topic of the interview on Fox and Friends was “Is it unconstitutional for the Federal Government to mandate that people buy insurance?” Governor Rendell’s response was as follows (and I quote):

“There is no legal question. These lawsuits are frivolous. There is no legal
merit. It’s just grandstanding by Attorney Generals. Why would you want to take
the immediate short-term benefits away from your citizens.”

Governor Rendell went on to explain that this is just a political game being played by the Attorney Generals across the country and in his own state.

If I could talk to Governor Rendell directly I would say . . . “No legal merit? What about the laws that are defined in the single most important document of law in the Country.” I would ask . . . “have you ever heard of the Constitution?” I would probably need to be more specific and expand on my question with . . . “have you ever heard of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution?” While you would think that the Governor would be familiar with the Bill of Rights, you really can’t “assume” anything in this case. If I could talk to Governor Rendell I would offer him a pocket edition of the Constitution for reference.

What the Governor fails to understand is that it is the RESPONSIBILITY of our state lawmakers to defend the rights of their constituents in our state. Failure to do so would be a breach of their “contract” with us as our elected officials. His only argument against the constitution is a reference to “short-term benefits”. “Short-term benefits” is the only carrot he could find for his stick. In an attempt to lure people away from the Constitution, Governor Rendell is offering “short-term benefits”.

I am hopeful that after this storm blows through, the Constitution survives . . . intact. Not for the “short-term benefits”, but for the long-term freedom of the people of the United States.

.

Email Roberta Biros, Start the discussion or Share This...

Oddly enough, it wasn’t because evil insurance companies told him to:

Dear Mr. Lewandowski,

On March 21, 2010, the House of Representatives approved the Senate healthcare bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HR 3590), without my support.

Once signed into law by the President, this bill will: (1) require individuals and employers to purchase health insurance or face financial penalties (2) mandate new national regulations on health insurance plans (such as no denial of coverage for preexisting conditions and no dropping coverage once enrolled) (3) create government agencies called “Exchanges” to regulate and sell insurance (4) create non-profit “co-op” health plans (5) increase taxes to cover the cost of expanding insurance coverage (6) mandate all states expand Medicaid (7) create a new government-run program to finance long-term care services and (8) reduce Medicare spending by nearly $500 billion. The Senate bill does not include a government-run health insurance plan but does contain weaker restrictions on taxpayer-funded abortions.

The House also passed on March 21, 2010 a second bill, the Reconciliation Act (HR 4872). This bill, which awaits further action in the Senate, makes additional cuts to Medicare, increases income taxes, delays the implementation of a 40% excise tax on health insurance plans, and replaces some of HR 3590’s special deals and carveouts with new ones like a federalization of student lending meant to produce $20 billion in savings to pay for the overall healthcare package.

Since Congress began debating healthcare legislation, I have gone to great lengths to gather input and share information. I am grateful for those who have joined me in productive discussions throughout the past year on how to improve the healthcare system in our country. The response was overwhelming. Literally tens of thousands of you spoke out. From Town Halls, to roundtable discussions, to the 750,000 letters and emails and the roughly 225 meetings I’ve held, I listened to your thoughts and took your comments to heart as I strived to make the best decision for my district.

While the feedback I received from my constituency showed overwhelming opposition to this legislation, I did not cast my ‘No’ vote lightly. It is a personal and professional disappointment for me because I am here to find solutions to reform the healthcare system. Unfortunately, this bill is not the solution and I know we can do better.

Having treated thousands of patients over the years I saw firsthand how the current system bankrupts families and in the process denies patients needed care. It was because of my experience as a healthcare provider that I entered public service with one overriding goal: to have a meaningful impact on reforming our healthcare system.

While in the Pennsylvania Senate, my Patient Bill of Rights legislation put doctors and patients back in control of their healthcare. It wasn’t easy to pass; I had to work on building consensus. By working together we advanced reform and successfully fought to take insurance companies out of the doctor’s office. Now, with this bill, we will have to fight to take government out of the doctor’s office.

In Congress I’ve aggressively sought out bipartisan solutions. In this past year alone I’ve reached out to the President, his Chief of Staff, and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman. I’ve met with the President’s top healthcare advisor Nancy-Ann DeParle, members from both sides, and even participated in the White House Healthcare Summit. We’ve met and shared ideas. From these meetings I’ve introduced legislation, formed congressional caucuses focused on reforms, and moved forward on policies that have been adopted with bipartisan support. Unfortunately, those reforms were cut from the final bill. You can find a list of those reforms at my web site, Murphy.house.gov.

Ultimately, the Senate bill will continue to fund a wasteful system, which accounts for $700 billion lost each year. It includes $50 billion spent on preventable healthcare-acquired infections that take 100,000 lives every year. Our inefficient Medicare system has not been reformed since it was created in 1965 and is continuing to approach bankruptcy. Instead of finding a solution to save Medicare, this bill takes nearly $500 billion from the program. This legislation only appears to be deficit-neutral because it takes $53 billion from the Social Security trust fund and $72 billion from a new long-term care entitlement before even a dime’s worth of benefits have been paid. This bill increases taxes by over $500 billion and creates new bureaucracies with no mechanism to restrain cost.

I will continue to push for reforms because the work does not end here. We must end denial for preexisting conditions, while expanding coverage to the uninsured. It is important to stop people who are covered from being dropped or restricting the care they can receive. There is much we can agree on both sides of the aisle, and yet we cannot come together to fix the underlying problems in our healthcare system.

We could have found ways to fix problems in the system, but compromise seems to be now frustratingly out of reach. We must find a better way to move forward. The level to which this debate has deteriorated cannot continue. I pledge to do my part to work on solutions with civility.

Sincerely,

Tim Murphy
Member of Congress

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

Sunlight Foundation:

A day after Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and ten other House members compromised on their pro-life position to deliver the necessary yes-votes to pass health care reform, the “Stupak 11″ released their fiscal year 2011 earmark requests, which total more than $4.7 billion–an average of $429 million worth of earmark requests for each lawmaker.

Of the eight lawmakers whose 2010 requests were available for comparison, five requested more money this week than they did a year ago: Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Ill., Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, D-Pa., Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, and Rep. Charles Wilson, D-Ohio.

The eleven members were the focus of high level pressure by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats because they threatened to vote against the health care reform bill, which passed the House on Sunday, March 21, by a seven vote margin. Granting earmark requests are one of the ways leadership can encourage members to vote their way.

I dont know what’s worse. Dahlkemper bein bought off, or Chris Carney being such a cheap date.

(tip to Hot Air)

Email AlexC, Start the discussion or Share This...

So many excellent posts about our eloquent Vice President’s words of “effing” congratulations to Obama just before signing the HealthCare bill into law, but I’m afraid Charles Krauthammer, via the Corner, wins the prize:

I think he is the man who, perhaps without intending, has given historical context to this presidency. After all, Obama sees himself as a successor to FDR and Truman, so now we have the historical procession: the New Deal, the Square Deal, and the “Big F**n Deal.”

Email LisaMossie, Join the discussion or Share This...

McGruff @ Sights on Pennsylvania points to, what I think is, an insightful comment on today’s political debate….

Health is not a right.

It is a personal responsibility.

Healthcare is not a right.

It is a commodity.

Health insurance is not a right.

It is a financial risk management tool.

Those who try to equate the Constitutional right of ‘life’ with health, health care, health insurance have got it completely wrong. The Constitution does not guarantee that the federal government will provide you with life. Instead it guarantees that the federal government will not take life away from you. Unless the government has done something to your health that resulted in the loss of your life, then you have no claim against the government, or a right to its monies (which come from taxes).

I think it’s unfortunate that the Democrats have framed the debate on implimentation, and the Republicans are happy to argue that.

It’s more fundamental.

In meatspace, it has been my experience in arguing with liberals that asking “by what authority” shuts down the debate. As if the answer they think of is not the answer they are willing to admit in words.

“None.”

Email AlexC, Join the discussion or Share This...