Freedom Line Blog

Minutes ago the Senate Finance Committee voted against Senator Jay Rockefeller’s (WV) version of a government-run public option.  The vote was a surprising victory for free-market advocates.  The Rockefeller amendment failed 8-15, with Senators Baucus (MT), Conrad (ND), Lincoln (AR), Nelson (FL), and Carper (DE) voting against the public option.

Call your Senators and tell them to vote “No” on a government-run public option that would result in anywhere from 80-120 million Americans losing their insurance. Here is the number: 202-224-3121.

Strangely, this piece comes from the Huffington Post but it’s authored by Dylan Ratigan of MSNBC, who seems to be more open-minded.

His point?  Democrats so often claim that the “market” is broken because health care is expensive and too many people lack health coverage.  Well, one reason that health care is too expensive is because the government helps to create health care monopolies in the states and even prevents consumers from shopping across state lines for cheaper/better insurance.

There is no true “market” for health care if you live in North Dakota where Blue Cross controls 90% of the market.  There is little choice in Maine where Wellpoint controls 71% of the market.  Capitalism works best when consumers have choices between companies.  Health care companies should beg and compete for our business, not the other way around.

That’s the headline President Obama will have to live with if he doesn’t wise up to the unintended consequences of health care reform.

A Pennsylvania physician called into Mark Levin’s radio show this afternoon to share with the nation that the Amish — who oppose any form of insurance as a matter of theology — will not comply with any individual mandate that is part of healthcare reform.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when we stop caring about individual rights.

The more Americans learn about what Congress is doing to reform the nation’s health care system, the less the American people support it.

According to the latest Rasmussen Reports survey, support among nationwide voters for the reform plan(s) being pushed by President Obama and Congressional Democrats has shrunk to 41%, with 56% of voters opposing it.  “That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured,” writes Rasmussen.

Other notable numbers revealed by the survey:

• Only 33% of senior citizens support the plan compared to the 59% who are opposed.
• A mere 16% of voters over the age of 65 ”Strongly Favor” the legislation, while 46% are “Strongly Opposed.”
• 75% of Democrats support the reform being considered by Congress.
• 79% of Republicans are opposed.
• 72% of independent voters — those who don’t affiliate with either major political party — are opposed.
• Among all voters surveyed, 23% “Strongly Favor” the plan vs. 43% who are “Strongly Opposed.”

“Stick a fork in it.  The public health insurance option is dead!”

That’s what the so-called “experts,” commentators and junkies have been saying for weeks.  Yet, nothing could be further from the truth.  Jeffrey Young, in The Hill today, writes:

The spotlight this week will continue on the Senate Finance Committee, where amendments to add the public insurance option will be offered by Democratic Sens. Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.) and Chuck Schumer (N.Y.).

“The issue will also continue to be a battle in the House, where liberal and centrists Democrats are fighting over whether it should be included in a House healthcare bill.”

Despite the public furor, town hall meetings and taxpayer marches — all focused, at least in part, in opposition to a government-run insurance plan — the politicians in Washington are not debating whether there should be a government takeover of health care.  Rather, they are fighting over how how much of a government takeover of your health care they can get away with.

Quick question:  If the election were held today, would you vote for your current representative and Senators?

Andy Barr, at Politico.com, outlines a major political problem for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.  A former and presumably future Republican candidate for President in 2012, Romney was front-and-center in pushing through and heralding unprecedented health care insurance expansion in the state.

Barr: 

Romney can rightfully boast that he got much what he aimed for, since less than three percent of Massachusetts citizens are currently uninsured.  But critics insist that the cost of Romney’s program has far exceeded the governor’s estimates and have targeted the plan as a prime example of what not to do on the national level.

“Even in Massachusetts there are signs of discomfort with the plan:  A June Rasmussen Reports poll found that only 26 percent of Massachusetts voters thought the state’s health care reform was a success.”

From our periodic scans of Massachusetts media regarding the growing problems with RomneyCare (and its similarities to national proposals), we think he’s got an awful tough row to hoe (as in garden tool, not hip hop slang, can’t be too careful these days) to win the Republican nomination if he just keeps defending the problematic plan, as he seems wont to do.

Still, we think Romney is a smart and honorable man.  And wouldn’t it be refreshing (not to mention unique) if he just stood up and said, “look, this was the problem and this is what we tried and it hasn’t worked, and it’s certainly not going to work on a national scale”?

In a letter sent to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Senator Mitch McConnell and other members of the Republican leadership threatened to block some of President Obama’s nominees until HHS lifts its gag order on private health insurance companies.

The gag order was put in place after Senator Baucus and others complained about a mailing Humana Inc. sent to seniors warning that the health care reform proposals advancing in Congress could result in cuts to Medicare benefits.   

McConnell’s office put out a release with excerpts from his interview on Fox News’ Your World with Neil Cavuto, during which he dicussed the letter and issue.  Below are some of those excerpts:

I sent a letter to the Secretary of Health and Human Services signed by the Republican Leadership. They have 10 vacancies of people they are trying to get appointed to the administration. None of those people will get through the Senate easily until they lift the gag order. None of these people make it through the Senate without extensive debate until they lift the gag order and allow the First Amendment to function for everyone in this country, including people who just happen to be doing business with the federal government.”

I think the Democratic majority is undeterred by the facts. The facts are that they are trying to cut Medicare. They certainly are cutting Medicare Advantage as well they are going to have a $500 billion cut in Medicare over the next 10 years. They are acting like they are not. Nobody believes that the director of the CBO has illustrated what they are doing. It is astonishing.”

Other Republican leaders who signed the letter include:  Senators  Jon Kyl, Lamar Alexander, John Thune, Lisa Murkowski, John Cornyn, Charles Grassley and Mike Enzi.

Here is a summary of the amendments considered during yesterday’s Senate Finance Committee hearing.  Chairman Baucus plans to finish work today and there is a possibility that the full Senate could take up consideration next week.  Be sure to call Congress and tell them what you think about higher taxes and government-run health care: 202-224-3121.  HT: Peter Roff

• Menendez C4:  Ensure and clarify that children qualify as exchange eligible individuals and that there shall be the option of a child-only health insurance option and subsides in the exchanges.  Agreed to by Voice Vote

• Enzi C6:  To provide additional choices to individuals who would otherwise be enrolled in Medicaid throught expansions in this bill.  Rejected 10-13.

• Ensign C14:  Protecting states that saw a Medicaid increase of more than 1 percent from an unfunded mandate.  Rejected 10-13.

• Stabenow C6:  To ensure high quality, specialized care for children and youth with special medical, psychological, social and emotional needs who can accept and respond to the close relationships within a family setting, but whose special needs require more intensive or therapeutic services than are found in traditional foster care.  Agreed to by Voice Vote

• Menendez C9:  Ensuring quality health care for those with autism and other behavioral health conditions.

• Crapo C2: The amendment would prohibit any expansion of the Medicaid program that would result in any additional costs for the States, now or in the future.

• Enzi C9: To exempt any State that the State‘s revenues have declined for 2 consecutive fiscal year quarters from any mandatory Medicaid expansions.

• Enzi C3:  Prior to implementing the employer assessments or fees described in Title 1, Subtitle D, the Secretary of Labor must certify that the implementation of such fees and assessments would not result in a reduction of workers‘ wages or an increase in the unemployment rate.  Passed 21-2.

• Rockefeller #D10:  Revised the Medicare Commission provisions. Passed 15-3.

• Nelson C1:  Strike provisions in Chairman‘s mark (pages 12-13) to allow states to form ―health care choice compacts. Agreed to on voice vote.

• Grassley C9:  This amendment requires states to raise reimbursement rates for Medicaid providers (such as pediatricians, children‘s hospitals, and dentists) providing care for an eligible child to 100% of Medicare levels starting in 2014.  Rejected 10-13.

• Bunning C3:  Amendment amends the Chairman‘s mark to require that any taxpayer who requests an exemption on their tax return from the personal responsibility excise tax be granted an exemption.  Rejected 9-14.

• Cornyn C7:  The amendment would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to annually submit to Congress for consideration the flat dollar amount required of employers under Subtitle D.   In order to take effect, Congress must enact and the President must sign the penalty into law. Failed on a point of order 8-8.

• Nelson D10:  Eliminate the Part D Coverage Gap and Require Drug Maker Rebates for Full-Benefit Dual Eligible Individuals.  Failed 13-10.

If Democrats avoid the typical route for passing a bill and use the budget reconciliation process (requiring only 51 votes for final passage), then opponents of a government-run system will need to convince several Democrats that the current bills in Congress are complete garbage and must be opposed, even during cloture votes.

Good news has arrived and a reliably liberal voice on the Democratic side, Ron Wyden (D-OR), has stated that he will not vote for the Baucus Bill in its current form.  Other Senators that should be persuaded in the same direction as Senator Wyden: Ben Nelson (D-NE), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Arlen Specter (D-PA), and Mark Warner (D-VA).

If you live in one of these states, call your Senator and let them know that you don’t support a government takeover of health care, individual mandates, employer mandates, higher taxes, or a reduction in your Medicare benefits.  Here is the Senate switchboard number: 202-224-3121.

Here is the Wyden video:

In his weekly descent into leftist frivolousness today, Wall Street Journal token columnist Thomas Frank argues that Democrats have remained far too…  get this…  “civil” in contemporary political debate.  Frank absurdly claims that in response to conservative activism, Democrats “pine for civility, pretending that the argument comes down to the scary rhetoric issuing from the right.”

On what planet is he living?  As noted by Tony Blankley in his most recent commentary, Democrats have met citizen activism by labeling them “evil” (Senator Harry Reid), “un-American” (House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer), “racist” (Jimmy Carter)  and accusing them of employing “Nazi” tactics (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi).  In contrast, Republican leaders have maintained a professional, restrained, rational tone, as illustrated by Senators Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl, and Representatives Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor.  Frank proceeds to unfurl his usual litany of anti-capitalist tirades and bogeymen, but that’s nothing new.  Asserting that Democrat leaders have somehow taken the rhetorical high road, however, is remarkably silly even for him.

We’ve heard the line time after time. “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor,” exclaims the President during every major town hall and Congressional address.  Unfortunately, when it comes to the sausage factory that is Congress, pledges morph into broken promises quickly.

Here is a perfect illustration of how Congress takes the simple (patient->doctor) and makes it maddeningly complex.  There is nothing Congress is incapable of ruining, including your relationship with your physician.

Apparently, Max Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and the New Wizard* of ObamaCare has decided that it is bad form to tax condoms, but really good form to tax insulin pumps and hearing aids and power wheelchairs.

Worried about perceptions that ObamaCare will tax the middle class (it still will, and we will be telling you we told you so for decades), Baucus seemingly decided to exempt consumer items of $100 or less from his previously proposed tax on medical devices.

There are no middle-class people who are deaf, diabetic and lame?  What did they do to get screwed?

Do these people really think we are that stupid?  Do they think that by applying the tax to the medical device companies, you won’t know it’s going to be passed to you?  There’s no one that stupid.  Plenty of people docile enough to let it happen, but not so stupid as to not understand this.

*Note that we are using Wizard as a coded expletive rather than Imperial Wizard, which is a better coded expletive, in this context, but would be mischaracterized and get us charged with saying bad stuff and inciting violence.

According to Senate staff, the Senate Finance Committee just rejected a proposal to require the full legislative text (not the summary) and final CBO cost estimate to be placed online 72 hours before a vote.

Before the Committee votes, taxpayers and even Senators won’t have a chance to read the bill or determine its projected cost.  So much for transparency and open government.

Majority Leader Harry Reid this morning didn’t mince words in warning Senate Republicans that if they don’t get behind “health care reform” soon the Dems will use a procedural maneuver to pass it on their own. 

If we can’t work this out to do something within the committee structure, then we’ll be forced to do reconciliation.”

Reid has threatened to use budget reconciliation — a procedural move that requires a simple majority vote for passage rather than the traditional 60 votes needed in the Senate to pass most bills —  before, but some have warned that such a move could backfire.  The Majority Leader’s “bipartisanship, we don’t need no stinking bipartisanship” moment this morning, however, made it clear that public opposition be damned, Reid is prepared to ram Obama’s government-run health care experiment down the throats of the American people no matter what it takes.

Given Reid’s anemic job approval ratings in Nevada, it appears he’s thinking he’s got nothing left to lose.

It appears that Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus failed to get the White House memo about tax increases not being tax increases prior to drafting his latest version of ObamaCare.

During yesterday’s now-infamous exchange with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, President Obama insisted that the provision in Baucus’ bill that taxes families up to $3,800 annually for failing to get health insurance (aka the “individual mandate”) is not a tax increase and therefore does not violate his oft-repeated campaign promise not to raise taxes on the middle class.

Hat tip to Chris Frates and Mike Allen of Politico for pointing out that the first sentence of Page 29 of the Baucus bill reads: “The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.”

But that’s not all. According to Frates and Allen:

And the rest of the bill is clear that the Finance Committee does, in fact, consider it a tax: ‘The excise tax would be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of Federal tax owed.’

So who’s lying now?

Here’s a hint: The President and his Administration are trying the same sleight of hand trick with regard to Cap-and-Trade … oops, Cap-and-Tax.

This video, an interview with White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod, demonstrates how health care “choice” is fine for the White House, as long as the government chooses.  People can choose the Public Option, but people cannot choose to purchase health insurance across state lines because the government makes it illegal. HT: Andy Roth.

Barack Obama isn’t going to “tax” Americans earning under $250,000 to help subsidize his healthcare overhaul – he’s merely going to “penalize” them, which is apparently something altogether different and palatable.

During this morning’s Obamapalooza tour of the Sunday talk shows (intentionally ostracizing Fox News Sunday, in a most un-Presidential fit of spite), a prevaricating Obama bizarrely insisted that his healthcare reform’s penalty provisions for those without insurance somehow do not amount to a “tax” on Americans earning under $250,000, but rather a justifiable “penalty.”  Throughout a large portion of his interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, the two battled over this topic, with a visibly frustrated Obama even reproaching Stephanopoulos for reading Merriam’s definition of “tax” – “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

Instead of honestly explaining why his plan doesn’t meet this simple definition, Obama descended into pettiness and replied, “George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.”

The reason that Obama resorted to this contortion of logic is that he solemnly and repeatedly promised throughout his campaign that he wouldn’t raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000 by a single dime.  Knowing that he cannot afford his own version of President George H. W. Bush’s “read my  lips – no new taxes” broken pledge, Obama will apparently stop at nothing in his Orwellian campaign of distortion.

Is he lying?  Or is he honestly confused?  Who knows anymore.  But uninsured Americans earning under $250,000 can rest assured that the money they’ll be forced to pay under ObamaCare isn’t a “tax,” it’s just a “penalty.”

According to The Washington Times, a series of “grass-roots demonstrations” set to take place Tuesday to promote ObamaCare are being planned as “tightly scripted events [featuring] an ‘escalation’ of efforts against ‘enemies’ of reform.

“…Health Care for America Now (HCAN), which is backed by a coalition of labor unions and liberal groups including ACORN and MoveOn.org, organized the protests to target insurance companies and drafted the plan, which describes the demonstrations as part of its ‘insurance enemies project.’

“The document, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times, details specific talking points, tactics, props and strategies to stage the protests.  It lists goals that include action that ‘mobilizes or base by animating existing anger about private insurers.'”

Surely, President Obama and Speaker Pelosi will speak out against “animating existing anger.”  Doesn’t “animating anger” lead to violence?  Since when is “animating anger” a legitimate policy goal?

We’re still trying to figure out how health insurance plans could be so greedy and evil when they pay medical providers 20% more than Medicare pays the same medical providers for the same services and manage to make only a 3% profit margin.  No one seems to want to answer that question.

The Senate Finance Committee has posted all 564 proposed amendments to Chairman Baucus and President Obama’s health care bill.

• Summary of 180 amendments concerning the delivery system for health care  — here.

                    Actual text of above amendments — here.

• Summary of the 284 amendments dealing with “exapanding coverage” — here.

                    Actual text of above amendments — here.

• Summary of the 100 amendments dealing with financing — here.

                    Actual text of above amendments — here. 

First paragraph of Associated Press Saturday story:  “Keep going.  You don’t have to fix it all now.  Just please don’t let it stall.  That’s the essence of the message that Senate Democratic leaders have for their Finance Committee senators, who plan to start voting Tuesday on a remake of the nation’s health care system.”

Translation:  If this fails, Pelosi won’t have anything to work over in conference to get her public option, so if you only fix it for the union guys to keep getting their Viagra, well that’s ObamaCare, and she’ll dump the heavy stuff in from her side, when opponents are just too tired to keep fighting this.

Also as of Saturday, more than 500 amendments to the Baucus version of the bill had been filed in the Finance Committee.  Bets on how many of those will get read?