What’s in the Senate’s Health Care Bill=HR 3590

Have you been wondering what’s in the Senate’s version of the National Health Care Bill? Well here’s some of what’s in it…….Enjoy!

You can call your Senators toll-free at 1-877-762-8762. The alternate, non toll-free, number is 202-224-3121.

The following information is provided by Americans for Tax Reform

Read the  full bill

Read the tax revenue score from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT)

Read the  budget and tax score from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)   PDF of this Document

Individual Mandate Tax (Page 324/Sec. 1501/$8 bil): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the following schedule

(capped at 8 percent of income)

Single              Single +1                     Single+2<

2014 $95                 $190                            $285

2015 $350                $700                            $1050

2016 etc. $750                $1500                          $2250

Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS).

Employer Mandate Tax (Page 348/Sec. 1513/$28 bil): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $750 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees.

If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).

Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Page 1979/Sec. 9001/$149.1 bil):

Starting in 2013, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($8500 single/$23,000 family). Higher threshold ($9850 single/$26,000 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed.

From 2013-2015, the 17 highest-cost states are 120% of this level.

Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Page 1996/Sec. 9002/Min$): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.

Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 1997/Sec. 9003/$5 bil): No longer allowable to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)

HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Page 1998/Sec. 9004/$1.3 bil): Increases additional tax on nonmedical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

FSA Cap (Page 1999/Sec. 9005/$14.6 bil): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited).

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 1999/Sec. 9006/$17.1 bil): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers

Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Page 2001/Sec. 9007/Min$): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new “community health assessment needs,” “financial assistance,” and “billing and collection” rules set by HHS.

Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Page 2010/Sec. 9008/$22.2 bil): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.

Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Page 2020/Sec. 9009/$19.3 bil): $2 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to shares of sales made that year. Exempts items retailing for <$100.

Tax on Health Insurers (Page 2026/Sec. 9010/$60.4 bil): $6.7 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year.

Eliminate tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Page 2034/Sec. 9012/$5.4 bil)

Raise “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Page 2034/Sec. 9013/$15.2 bil): Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only

$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Page 2035/Sec. 9014/$0.6 bil)

Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Page 2040/Sec. 9015/$53.8 bil): Current law and changes:

	WagesSelf-Employment	(Employer/Employee) Net Income
Current Law and NewRate on First $200,000 ($250,000 MFJ)	1.45%/1.45%	2.9%
New Rate on AmountWhich Exceeds $200,000 ($250,000   MFJ)	1.45%/1.95%	3.4%

Pelosicare? Reidcare?–The Bait and Switch Game Begins

Boy, if this doesn’t get your blood boiling! When you read this article, you’ll see these liberals will go to no end and try all kinds of hidden deceptions to pass their unconstitutional health care bill. A  cloture vote Saturday Nov.21,  by Senators on whether even to start debating the bill. With Republicans seemingly united against the bill, Reid will need all 60 Democrats to vote against the filibuster.

What Reid wants is for the Senate to vote to proceed on a bill that has not been seen, not read, not studied by the very Senators from whom he wants to force a vote. If this bill is so important, why isn’t it imperative that our Senators actually get to see the thing they are expected to vote on?

And that isn’t the worst of the unconscionable dirty tricks that Reid is playing with this “important” legislation. He’s also planning on a bait and switch tactic once he gets his vote to proceed.

News is that Reid wants to use a Senate procedure where a bill can be swapped out with another on the floor. He wants to bring an unassociated bill to the floor and once it gets there he wants to swap that bill out with the health care bill. In other words, he wants to bring a fake bill to the floor and pull a bait-and-switch act to suddenly plop before the Senate the heretofore unseen health care bill. Then he wants to force a quick vote before Christmas.

Under pressure from the White House, Majority Leader Harry Reid says he plans to bring a health care reform package to the floor of the Senate next week, and his goal is to see it passed by the end of the year.

But he faces an uphill climb in getting the required 60 votes necessary to start debate.

Pelosicare? Reidcare?–The Shell Game Continues

CORRECTION: Amid conflicting reports and information on the timing of the health care bill, HUMAN EVENTS just received clarification on possibilities under the rules for the Senate schedule next week.

This week, Reid began a Rule 14 process on the House health care bill. What that means is the bill is available on the legislative calendar by Tuesday, November 17.  It does not mean the Senate will actually proceed to health care.

Because a tax bill cannot originate in the Senate (the Constitution says tax bills must originate in Congress) , Reid needed a shell to use to proceed to his health care bill.  He is using the House-passed version as a shell to move on the Senate’s health care bill.  Rule 14 was the easiest way to place the House bill on the calendar — the shell that will ultimately be fully substituted by the Harrycare bill. In order to immediately begin consideration of the health care bill, Reid must have a unanimous consent agreement, which is unlikely.

Without unanimous consent, Reid is forced to file for cloture on Tuesday.  The vote on the Motion to Proceed to the health care bill could not occur until Thursday morning at the earliest.

There are also 30 hours of post-cloture debate that, if used, would delay any adoption of a Motion to Proceed until Friday afternoon which would then be the earliest Reid could offer the actual Senate bill as a substitute amendment.  This would be the Friday before the week-long Thanksgiving recess.

Apparently oblivious to the unpopularity of the government takeover of America’s health care system, Democrat leaders in the House and Senate continue to lay the structural groundwork for the final passage of a health care bill this year.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) revised the House calendar yesterday to include Monday, December 21 and Tuesday, December 22 as possible days the House will be in session and voting. The previously-targeted date for Christmas adjournment was Friday, December 18.

The House will be in recess for the Thanksgiving holiday the week of November 23.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday night filed a Motion to Proceed to bring the House health care bill to the floor for debate by no later than Tuesday, November 16.  Reid needs 60 votes for the motion to pass and floor debate to begin.

But Senate sources tell HUMAN EVENTS that he’s doing this only to comply with the constitutional rule that revenue bills must originate in the House. Reid intends to substitute his own bill (whatever that may be) when the measure comes up in the Senate next week.

Pro-life senators could oppose the motion if the Stupak-Pitts pro-life language is not included in the bill before it comes up for this critical vote.  Once the bill is brought to the floor for debate, it will take 60 votes to make any additions to the bill. It is unlikely a pro-life amendment could reach that threshold.

Republican Senators should oppose the motion en masse.  Republicans have been excluded from the entire bill-writing process, and his bill is certain to be as bad (or in some ways even worse) than the bill Speaker Pelosi slammed through the House late Saturday night.  Reid has not yet released a Senate bill with legislative language for Republican or general public review.  The measure is being written behind closed doors by the White House and Democrat leadership.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost analysis of the Senate bill has not yet been completed but may be available by week’s end.

There is no reason for Republicans to desire to get a bill to the floor.

If any one of the 58 Democrats or the two independents opposes the motion on Tuesday, combined with a united Republican caucus, the motion fails and Harrycare stalls in the Senate.

The Gallup poll released just yesterday shows independent registered voters now favor any Republican candidate over a Democrat on the generic ballot by a stunning 52 to 30 percent.  Yes, that’s the independents.  The American people appear to be more worried about the current Democrat solutions to our problems than the actual problems themselves.

Americans resent being ignored by arrogant politicians who think they know better how to run our lives than we do.  And mocking efforts to make our voices heard really isn’t a very good way to win votes and influence people.

The attitude on display by Democrat leaders in Congress and the White House these days is exactly what led to the Republican takeover in 1994.

The current Senate health care measure teed up for the Motion to Proceed vote next Tuesday is not a bill designated as a budget reconciliation measure.  Should this motion fail, the scenario offered by the Heritage Foundation’s Brian Darling remains a valid means by which the Senate could facilitate passage of a bill through reconciliation this year.  With no changes, it would go straight from the House to Obama’s desk for signature by the end of the year.

There is another scenario to ponder this year in lieu of the House or Senate reporting bills out of committee with the budget reconciliation designation early next year.

H.R. 3962, the health care bill already passed by the House last week, was not designated as a budget reconciliation bill.  However, all three House committees of jurisdiction took measures to certify that H.R.3200, the bill’s predecessor, met all of the budget reconciliation requirements.

But we’re told H.R. 3200 was not reported out of the Budget Committee to the Rules Committee as a reconciliation measure before it was brought to the floor and passed.

Should the Senate pass a health care bill with whatever it takes to get the votes, the House and Senate bills go to conference to combine the two measures that emerge as a Conference Report which is actually the final compromise bill.  The Conference Report must then pass both the House and the Senate.

A concern raised yesterday was using budget reconciliation as a means to pass the Conference Report through the Senate.  Can the Conference Report emerge as a reconciliation measure?

House Rules currently say no, yet we should all be reminded that House rules are what the majority says they are.

The success of any budget reconciliation attempt in the Senate rests on rulings by the parliamentarian.  We all watched as the White House summoned the “non-partisan” CBO Director Doug Elmendorf for some Chicago-style political repartee.  We’ve also seen the integrity of the subsequent House CBO scores collapsing under scrutiny.

How far are Democrats willing to go to get their ultimate statist power grab across a finish line that’s oh, so close? All the way.

HumanEvents.com

Obamacare Declared DOA in Senate

Well let’s hope this article is true, because regardless of what a lot of people think we don’t need a government run healthcare system in the US.

ObamaCare legislation in trouble

Not so fast.

President Obama’s victory dance yesterday for the House-passed health-care bill came as Senate foes — mainly Republicans with one key Democrat moderate — pronounced the measure mortally wounded, if not outright DOA.

Speaking from the Rose Garden after the squeaker 220-215 Saturday-night vote, Obama urged senators to be like runners on a relay team and “take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line on behalf of the American people.”

Instead, he met with immediate resistance.

If a government plan is part of the deal, “as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote,” Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent whose vote Democrats need to overcome a GOP filibusters, told “Fox News Sunday.”

Lieberman said he was concerned about new government spending the health-care legislation would entail, saying deficits have gotten gargantuan.

“I don’t want to do that to our children and grandchildren,” he said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” declared, “The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate.” ( Graham went on to say….“The public option will destroy private health care. Nobody in this country in the Insurance business can compete with the government sponsored plan where the government writes the benefits and the politicians never raise the premiums. It  will be a death blow to private choice and all of these bills depend on reducing Medicare by $500 billion over the next 10 years.  Seniors are not going to like that, it’s unnecessary.  I just feel like the construct coming out of the House and what exists in the Senate is not going to pass and I hope and pray it doesn’t because it would be a disaster for the economy and health care.”)

“It was bill written by liberals for liberals, and people like Joe Lieberman are not going to get anywhere near the House bill . . . It is a nonstarter in the Senate.”

He said he firmly believes “the public option will destroy private health care.”

The House-backed bill would expand coverage to nearly all Americans and bar insurance practices such as refusing to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions.

But in the Senate, moderate Dems have balked at Majority Leader Harry Reid’s plan for a public option, an insurance plan run by the government rather than private companies.

Reid (D-Nev.) has yet to schedule floor debate and hinted last week that senators may not be able to finish health care this year.

Democrats have no margin for error: They control exactly 60 seats in the 100-member Senate.

The overhaul would lead to the biggest changes in the $2.5 trillion health-care system — which accounts for one-sixth of the US economy — since the 1965 creation of the Medicare government health-insurance program for the elderly.

The House vote was a vital victory for Obama, who staked much of his political capital on the health-care battle.

A loss in the House could have ended the fight, impaired the rest of his legislative agenda and left Democrats vulnerable to big losses in next year’s congressional elections.

NYPost.com

House Call on Washington by Tea Partiers

In the video you can’t see Mark Levin, but you can hear him very good.

Tea partiers descend on Capitol Hill

The Tea Party holds no seat in Congress, but at least 10,000 of the party’s members descended on Capitol Hill Thursday to rally against a Democratic-written health care overhaul.

A plan first hatched and heralded on FOX by iconic conservative Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) grew over the weekend as she e-mailed with a handful of colleagues. By the time activists started arriving at the foot of the Capitol around 8:30 a.m., it was clear no Republican leader could stay away.

Minority Leader John Boehner, Republican Whip Eric Cantor and Conference Chairman Mike Pence all spoke.

Inside, Democrats were working to finalize a trillion-dollar health care bill that they say will deliver insurance to tens of millions of Americans who currently lack it, improve the quality of care and rein in costs both for individuals and the government.

Outside, on the grassy lawn just steps from where Barack Obama took the oath of office, an endless lineup of rank-and-file lawmakers and conservative All Stars – Bachmann, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, actor Jon Voigt and Mark Levin, author of “Liberty and Tyranny” – demanded that the health care bill be torn asunder.

“Madam Speaker, throw out this bill,” bellowed Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.).

“Oh come on, tell them how you really feel,” Bachmann yelled to the crowd from a temporary podium at the foot of the Capitol.

“Kill the bill! Kill the bill! Kill the bill!” the crowd replied.

UPDATED: John Tanner undecided on House health care bill vote this weekend

For those readers that haven’t heard how John Tanner or other representatives voted on the unconstitutional health care bill you can see all the votes here. John Tanner did the right thing and voted against the bill.

Here’s a letter from John Tanner’s office after calling him on health care. See what you think about his response. I know what I think.

Dear Mr. Davis:

 

Thank you for contacting our office to share your concerns with H. R. 3962, the health care reform proposal considered in the House. I have met with or heard from thousands of Tennesseans, who, like you, opposed the current legislation and others who supported it.

I continue to believe that reform of our country’s health care delivery system is needed and that all Americans should have access to affordable, quality health care. However, after careful review of the current legislation and the analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, I believe the bill will not help control the long-term costs of health care and puts in place an infrastructure that is not fiscally sustainable over time. Therefore, I was unable to support H. R. 3962.

There are many good things in this bill. We should continue our health insurance reform efforts to ensure that no one can be denied health coverage because of a pre-exiting condition and to end the insurance companies’ ability to cancel coverage when someone becomes ill. And, we simply must slow the upward curve of health care costs.

Despite my vote in opposition, H. R. 3962 passed the House by a vote of 220 to 215. The Senate is expected to consider a version of health care reform legislation in the next several weeks. Should the Senate pass its version, a House/Senate conference committee will be required to work out the differences in the two versions. Once a conference agreement has been reached, the House and Senate both will have to vote on that compromise. I plan to continue to work hard to produce a better and more cost-efficient bill that we can all support.

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. Please continue to contact me on issues of concern to you in the future.

Sincerely,

John Tanner, M.C.

Tennessee Congressman Tanner undecided on House health care bill vote this weekend

The House will begin debate on the 2000+ page, $2.4 Trillion health care bill on Friday… and plans to vote on the bill Saturday evening. (11-07-09)

According to both the Washington D.C. and Jackson, TN offices of Congressman John Tanner, Mr. Tanner is currently “reading and reviewing the bill” and has not made a decision as to how he will vote on Saturday.(Give John Tanner a call and help him make that decision to vote against this bill or vote for it and take a chance on losing his seat in the next election.)

Rep. Tanner voted against the original bill in the Ways and Means Committee. Please call and email the Congressman and encourage him to do the same this weekend!

Congressman Tanner’s office: (202) 225-4714

You can send an email from the form at https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

GOP members offer amendment to force Congress to participate in public option

Five House Republicans hope to add to Democrats’ healthcare reform bill an amendment that would automatically enroll members of Congress in the public option program.

The effort, spearheaded by Reps. John Fleming (La.), Joe Wilson (S.C.), Wally Herger (Calif.), Phil Gingrey (Ga.) and Steve Scalise (La.), would bar lawmakers from participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which they currently use for health insurance. Instead, members would have to rely on the Health Insurance Exchange and the public option plan House Democrats are proposing in their latest healthcare reform effort.

“If Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi [D-Calif.] and her Democratic counterparts truly believe that their government insurance option is the best way forward for healthcare in the United States, then they should be fully supportive of amending the bill to ensure that every single member of Congress, both in the House and Senate, is enrolled in it,” explained Rep. Gingrey, who is leading the new campaign.

thehill.com

Is National Health Care Constitutional

I’m glad to see this question being asked by a prominent person like Orin Hatch and I think the honest answer to this is NO forced national health care is not Constitutional. But whether a court will have the political guts to rule as such is a different matter.

Sen. Hatch Questions Constitutionality of Obamacare:

If Feds Can Force Us to Buy Health Insurance ‘Then There’s Literally Nothing the Federal Government Can’t Force Us to Do’ ( Maybe Congress should pass a law that everyone has to buy at least $10,000 worth of life insurance or buy a new car this year or buy a new HD television or a computer –where does this stuff stop? I think it stops at the question, Is this Constitutional? In this case I don’t think it is.)

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) (Congressional photo)

(CNSNews.com) – Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, who has served in the Senate for 33 years and is a longtime member of the Judiciary Committee, told CNSNews.com that he does not believe the Democrats’ health-care reform plan is constitutionally justifiable, noting that if the federal government can force Americans to buy health insurance “then there is literally nothing the federal government can’t force us to do.”

Both the House and Senate versions of the health-care reform plan would force all individuals who are citizens or legal residents of the United States to buy health insurance. President Obama has endorsed this provision.

Hatch said if the federal government starts ordering Americans to purchase specific products without being able to plausibly justify that mandate through the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce, it will mean “we’ve lost our freedoms, and that means the federal government can do anything it wants to do to us.”

The Commerce Clause, found in Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution, says: “The Congress shall have power to … regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

Hatch said this constitutional language authorizes Congress to regulate some types of commercial “activity,” which is different from authorizing Congress to force an individual American to engage in a commercial activity he or she is not presently engaged in and–as a free person–does not want to engage in. He said that “not one” of his Democratic colleagues has given a coherent constitutional argument to explain where Congress would derive the authority to do the latter.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government has never before mandated that Americans buy any good or service.

In 1994, when Congress was considering a universal health care plan formulated by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton, the Congressional Budget Office studied that plan’s provision that would have forced individuals to buy health insurance and determined it was an unprecedented act.

“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States,” the CBO concluded.  “An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

“I think there’s a real constitutional issue there,” Hatch said on the CNSNews.com program “Online with Terry Jeffrey.”

“Well, keep in mind the General Welfare Clause hasn’t been used for years, except through the Commerce Clause–Article I, Section 8,” said Hatch. “And frankly the Commerce Clause affects, quote, ‘activities,’ unquote. And, you know, the government telling you you have to buy health insurance–mandating that you have to buy health insurance–is not an activity. That’s telling you you got to do something you don’t want to do.

“Well, let’s put it this way,” said Hatch. “If that is held constitutional–for them to be able to tell us we have to purchase health insurance–then there is literally nothing that the federal government can’t force us to do. Nothing.”

When CNSNews.com asked Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) where the Constitution authorizes Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance, Leahy would not directly answer the question, claiming that “nobody” questioned Congress’s authority to do this.

“We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?” Leahy told CNSNews.com reporter Matt Cover. ”Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was equally dismissive of the question of where the Constitution authorized Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance. When reporter Matt Cover asked her the question, she said: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs similarly dismissed the issue without directly saying where the Constitution authorized the federal government to force people to buy health insurance. When CNSNews.com White House Correspondent Fred Lucas asked Gibbs to comment on the fact that some Republicans were questioning the constitutionality of forcing Americans to buy health insurance, Gibbs said: “I won’t be confused as a constitutional scholar, but I don’t believe there’s a lot of–I don’t believe there’s a lot of case law that would demonstrate the veracity of what they’re commentating on.”

Hatch said that if Congress claimed the power to tell Americans what things they must buy there would be “no limit” to the power of the federal government over the lives of Americans.

CNS News.com

ObamaCare–The Worst Bill Ever

The Wall Street Journal had a great  editorial on Monday about Pelosi’s Healthcare plan and described it as the worse bill EVER.

Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all.

The Worst Bill Ever

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she’s prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that’s what it takes to pass ObamaCare, and little wonder. The health bill she unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a “critical milestone,” may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.

In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.

Yet at this point, Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan “reform” and moved into the realm of pure power politics as they race against the unpopularity of their own agenda. The goal is to ram through whatever income-redistribution scheme they can claim to be “universal coverage.” The result will be destructive on every level—for the health-care system, for the country’s fiscal condition, and ultimately for American freedom and prosperity.

•The spending surge. The Congressional Budget Office figures the House program will cost $1.055 trillion over a decade, which while far above the $829 billion net cost that Mrs. Pelosi fed to credulous reporters is still a low-ball estimate. Most of the money goes into government-run “exchanges” where people earning between 150% and 400% of the poverty level—that is, up to about $96,000 for a family of four in 2016—could buy coverage at heavily subsidized rates, tied to income. The government would pay for 93% of insurance costs for a family making $42,000, 72% for another making $78,000, and so forth.

At least at first, these benefits would be offered only to those whose employers don’t provide insurance or work for small businesses with 100 or fewer workers. The taxpayer costs would be far higher if not for this “firewall”—which is sure to cave in when people see the deal their neighbors are getting on “free” health care. Mrs. Pelosi knows this, like everyone else in Washington.

Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It “pays for” about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, “saving” about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.

• Expanding Medicaid, gutting private Medicare. All this is particularly reckless given the unfunded liabilities of Medicare—now north of $37 trillion over 75 years. Mrs. Pelosi wants to steal $426 billion from future Medicare spending to “pay for” universal coverage. While Medicare’s price controls on doctors and hospitals are certain to be tightened, the only cut that is a sure thing in practice is gutting Medicare Advantage to the tune of $170 billion. Democrats loathe this program because it gives one of out five seniors private insurance options.

As for Medicaid, the House will expand eligibility to everyone below 150% of the poverty level, meaning that some 15 million new people will be added to the rolls as private insurance gets crowded out at a cost of $425 billion. A decade from now more than a quarter of the population will be on a program originally intended for poor women, children and the disabled.

Even though the House will assume 91% of the “matching rate” for this joint state-federal program—up from today’s 57%—governors would still be forced to take on $34 billion in new burdens when budgets from Albany to Sacramento are in fiscal collapse. Washington’s budget will collapse too, if anything like the House bill passes.

• European levels of taxation. All told, the House favors $572 billion in new taxes, mostly by imposing a 5.4-percentage-point “surcharge” on joint filers earning over $1 million, $500,000 for singles. This tax will raise the top marginal rate to 45% in 2011 from 39.6% when the Bush tax cuts expire—not counting state income taxes and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. The burden will mostly fall on the small businesses that have organized as Subchapter S or limited liability corporations, since the truly wealthy won’t have any difficulty sheltering their incomes.

This surtax could hit ever more earners because, like the alternative minimum tax, it isn’t indexed for inflation. Yet it still won’t be nearly enough. Even if Congress had confiscated 100% of the taxable income of people earning over $500,000 in the boom year of 2006, it would have only raised $1.3 trillion. When Democrats end up soaking the middle class, perhaps via the European-style value-added tax that Mrs. Pelosi has endorsed, they’ll claim the deficits that they created made them do it.

Under another new tax, businesses would have to surrender 8% of their payroll to government if they don’t offer insurance or pay at least 72.5% of their workers’ premiums, which eat into wages. Such “play or pay” taxes always become “pay or pay” and will rise over time, with severe consequences for hiring, job creation and ultimately growth. While the U.S. already has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, Democrats are on the way to creating a high structural unemployment rate, much as Europe has done by expanding its welfare states.

Meanwhile, a tax equal to 2.5% of adjusted gross income will also be imposed on some 18 million people who CBO expects still won’t buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.

• The insurance takeover. A new “health choices commissioner” will decide what counts as “essential benefits,” which all insurers will have to offer as first-dollar coverage. Private insurers will also be told how much they are allowed to charge even as they will have to offer coverage at virtually the same price to anyone who applies, regardless of health status or medical history. (Anyone that knows anything about insuring people or about actuarial figures  knows this is insane and will run the insurance companies out of business and leave – - – guess what? The GOVERNMENT PLAN of course and a single payer system that Pelosi wants.)

The cost of insurance, naturally, will skyrocket. The insurer WellPoint estimates based on its own market data that some premiums in the individual market will triple under these new burdens. The same is likely to prove true for the employer-sponsored plans that provide private coverage to about 177 million people today. Over time, the new mandates will apply to all contracts, including for the large businesses currently given a safe harbor from bureaucratic tampering under a 1974 law called Erisa.

The political incentive will always be for government to expand benefits and reduce cost-sharing, trampling any chance of giving individuals financial incentives to economize on care. Essentially, all insurers will become government contractors, in the business of fulfilling political demands: There will be no such thing as “private” health insurance.

Wallstreet Journal online

Congressman Says He Now Has ‘About 40 Likeminded Democrats’ Who Will Vote to Kill Health Bill if He Doesn’t Get Floor Vote on Pro-Life Amendment

Looks like more truth about the Obamacare bill will be coming out one way or the other.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.) told CNSNews.com yesterday that he has organized a group of “about 40 likeminded Democrats” who will vote to kill the health-care bill if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) does not allow a floor vote on his amendment to prohibit federal funds from going to insurance plans that cover abortion.Under Stupak’s plan, the approximately 40 Democrats in his camp would join with all House Republicans in voting to defeat the special House “rule” that would set the terms for debating and amending the health-care bill on the House floor when it is brought up for a final vote. If a majority of the House does not first vote to approve this rule, the health-care bill itself cannot be brought to the floor.“We will try to—we, there’s about 40 like minded Democrats like myself—we’ll try to take down the rule,” Stupak told CNSNews.com. “If all 40 of us vote in a bloc against the rule—because we think the Republicans will join us—we can defeat the rule. The magic number is 218. If we can have 218 votes against the rule, we win.”

more about “CNSNews.com – Congressman Says He Now…“, posted with vodpod

“If you hold all 40 of your guys, how many votes do you have?” asked CNSNews.com.

“About 220,” said Stupak.

“So, you’ve got a two-vote margin there?” asked CNSNews.com

“Correct,” said Stupak.

If Stupak’s bloc of Democrats holds together against a rule, Stupak said, “They cannot bring the bill to the floor.”

Stupak’s amendment was defeated by a vote of 28 to 30 in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, when that committee was drafting its version of the health-care bill. Stupak’s serves on the committee and is chairman of its Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Stupak said that House Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter (D.-N.Y.) has told him there is “no way” her committee will write a rule that allows a floor vote on his amendment.  The Democratic majority on the Rules Committee, Stupak said, acts on the direction of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The health care bill approved by the Energy and Commerce Committee creates health insurance “exchanges” in each state. These “exchanges” would sell government-approved health insurance plans. The bill would also provide federal subsidies to people making up to 400 percent of the poverty level to use when buying insurance plans in the exchange.

The committee approved an amendment sponsored by Rep. Lois Capps (D.-Calif.) that would require that there be at least one health care plan in each exchange that covers abortions. People would be able to buy these abortion-covering insurance plans with federal subsidies, although they would also be required to pay an extra premium of at least $1 to theoretically pay for the abortion part of their coverage.  Stupak and other pro-lifers—including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops–argue that money is fungible and that any federal funds going to an insurance plan that covers abortions is in fact a federal subsidy of abortion.

Stupak’s amendment–which mirrors the language of the Hyde amendment that is incorporated each year into various appropriations bills including the Health and Human Services appropriation–would prohibit federal funds from paying for any part of a health plan that covers abortions.

Stupak told CNSNews.com that although he has about 40 votes now to kill the rule for the health-care bill if Speaker Pelosi does not allow a floor vote on his amendment, he said that situation could change when the rule is brought to the floor and the voting on it actually takes place.

When the vote is going on, Stupak said, the Democratic leadership will “twist arms” and try to persuade the 40 would-be defectors to fall back in line with the party.

CNSNews.com

 

Numbers don’t add up on insurance profit claims by Congress

Well this is just what I’d suspect from the bunch in Washington, D.C.

Quick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo?

Answer: They’re all more profitable than the health insurance industry.

In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making “immoral” and “obscene” returns while “the bodies pile up.”

Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That’s anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

Insurers are an expedient target for leaders who want a government-run plan in the marketplace. Such a public option would force private insurers to trim profits and restrain premiums to compete, the argument goes. This would “keep insurance companies honest,” says President Barack Obama.

The debate is loaded with intimations that insurers are less than straight, when they are not flatly accused of malfeasance.

They may not have helped their case by commissioning a report that looked primarily at the elements of health care legislation that might drive consumer costs up while ignoring elements aimed at bringing costs down. Few in the debate seem interested in a true balance sheet.

But in pillorying insurers over profits, the critics are on shaky ground. A look at some claims, and the numbers:

The claims

“I’m very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers’ “obscene profits.”

“Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants. Their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade, and their profits have skyrocketed.” Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

The numbers

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better – drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That’s a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.

The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.

UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.

Van Hollen is right that premiums have more than doubled in a decade, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase.

But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?

Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry’s overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.

The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.

JacksonSun.com

You Might Be A Constitutionalist If . . ..

Read this and see how you stand………….I personally stand guilty of being a Constitutionalist.

You Might Be A Constitutionalist If . .

I am absolutely convinced that without a renewed allegiance to constitutional government and State sovereignty, there can be no resolution to America’s current slide into socialism and oppression. Therefore, it is critical that we cast aside our infatuation with partisan politics and steadfastly stand firm for the principles of federalism and freedom, as did America’s founders.

Might you be a modern-day Minuteman who understands the principles of freedom and federalism? I offer the following test. Read it and see if you, too, are a Constitutionalist. (Yes, Martha, this is another Jeff Foxworthy spin-off.)

1. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that every congressman, senator, President, and Supreme Court justice is required to obey the U.S. Constitution.

2. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that before the United States invades and occupies another country, Congress must first declare war.

3. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe the federal government should live within its means, like everyone else is forced to do.

4. You might be a Constitutionalist if you think that taking away people’s liberties in the name of security is not patriotic, nor does it make the country more secure.

5. You might be a Constitutionalist if you would like to see politicians be forced to abide by the same laws they make everyone else submit to.

6. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that we have three “separate but equal” branches of government that are supposed to hold each other in check and balance.

7. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the federal government has no authority to be involved in education or law enforcement, or in any other issue that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States, or to the People.

8. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that gun control laws do nothing but aid and abet criminals while trampling the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens.

9. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the income tax is both unconstitutional and immoral, and, along with the I.R.S. and the Federal Reserve, should be abolished.

10. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe the federal government had no authority to tell former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore that he could not display a monument containing the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery; or to tell a Pace, Florida, high school principal that he could not pray before a meal.( They certainly do not)

11. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that Congress or the White House or any sovereign State is not required to submit to unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings. (Do you know about nullification?)

12. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that freedom has nothing in common with illegal immigration.

13. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that outsourcing American jobs overseas is not good for America.( Can you say 10% unemployment?)

14. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the United States should get out of the United Nations and get the United Nations out of the United States.

15. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that it is not unconstitutional for children in public schools to pray or read the Bible.( Here’s a history lesson for some people. In May of 1779 George Washington told the Delaware Indian chiefs while trying to convince them to send their children to American Schools……..“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.”….from The writings of George Washington from the original manuscript sources)

16. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the Boy Scouts are not a threat to America.

17. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the federal government should honor its commitments to America’s veterans and stop using U.S. military personnel as guinea pigs for testing drugs and chemicals.

18. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that U.S. troops should never serve under foreign commanders or wear the uniform or insignia of the United Nations, and that they must never submit to illegal orders, such as turning their weapons against American citizens, or confiscating the guns of U.S. citizens.

19. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the federal government has no business bribing churches and faith-based organizations with federal tax dollars.

20. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that federal agents who murder American citizens should be held to the same laws and punishments that any other citizen would be held to. (Can anyone say, “Waco” and “Ruby Ridge”?)

21. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and the FTAA (and similar agreements) are disastrous compromises of America’s national sovereignty and independence.

22. You might be a Constitutionalist if you would like to see congressmen and senators be required to actually read a bill before passing it into law.

23. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that it is the job of government to protect and secure God-given rights, not use its power to take those rights away.

24. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that there is nothing unconstitutional about the public acknowledgement of God and our Christian heritage. (This is correct…..Congress is the only thing/people  that can violate the 1st amendment establishment clause, by making a law establishing a national religion. Anything else is not a violation of the 1st amendment as the courts have been unconstitutionally  enforcing since the 1960s. I challenge anyone to find me one, just one example of the founding fathers practicing “separation of church and state” in their day as the courts are making us do today ! You won’t be able to find any…….not even one, because they didn’t do it.)

25. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that government bailouts and “stimulus” expenditures defy virtually every principle of free enterprise and are a flagrant leap into socialism.

26. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that airport screeners have no business touching women’s breasts, using sophisticated machinery to look through passengers’ clothing to see their naked bodies, confiscating fingernail clippers, or denying pilots from carrying handguns.

27. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that many public schools’ “zero-tolerance” policies are just plain stupid.

28. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that parents have a right to homeschool their children.

29. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that governmental seizure of private property is plain, old-fashioned thievery.

30. You might be a Constitutionalist if you are personally determined to not submit to any kind of forced vaccination. (Judge Andrew Napolitano explains the Constitutionality of this.)

31. You might be a Constitutionalist if you oppose any kind of national health insurance.

32. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that U.S. troops are not the world’s policemen, that they are not “nation-builders,” and that their purpose is only to defend American lives and property, not to be the enforcement arm of international commercial interests or global elitists.

33. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that the county Sheriff is the highest law enforcement officer of his district and that federal law enforcement (much of which is unconstitutionally organized, anyway) is obligated to submit to his authority. (Most people aren’t even remotely aware of this truth.)

34. You might be a Constitutionalist if you are determined to oppose America’s merger with any kind of regional, hemispheric, or international government, such as the North American Union.

35. You might be a Constitutionalist if you oppose sending billions of taxpayer dollars as foreign aid; the U.S. State Department meddling into the private affairs of foreign countries; and ubiquitous foreign entanglements that require vast sums of money, create animosity and hostility towards us, and expose us to foreign wars and conflicts in which we have no national interest.

36. You might be a Constitutionalist if you would like to meet one single congressman or senator besides Ron Paul who acts as if he or she has ever read the U.S. Constitution.

Well, how did you fare? Are you a Constitutionalist? If so, your country desperately needs you to stand up and fight for freedom’s principles before they are forever taken from us. This means never again voting for anyone–from any party–who will not preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution. So, don’t just take the test; make the pledge!

ChuckBaldwinLive.com