Black Leader Against Reconciliation

by Tom Remington

Black Leader Speaks Out Against Obama Recommending Reconciliation to Pass Government-Run Health Care

Washington, DC: Mychal Massie, chairman of the Project 21 black leadership network, is condemning President Barack Obama’s decision to urge Senate leaders to employ controversial reconciliation rules to force a government takeover of health care.

“The people have spoken, and they have said no to Obama’s radical brand of health care reform,” said Project 21’s Massie. “Putting his seal of approval on usurping regular Senate procedure showcases not just an extraordinary arrogance and a willingness to abuse legislative power, but it also unambiguously indicates his contempt and disregard for the will of the American people.”

In an address from the White House today, Obama expressed a willingness to work with Republicans to pass health care reform. But Obama also suggested that the Senate leadership might instead employ reconciliation rules to limit debate and lower the vote threshold normally needed to pass legislation in that chamber. This would allow the plan’s more unpopular provisions to be enacted.

“During the judicial battles of the Bush years, when there was talk of the employing the ‘nuclear option’ to overcome filibusters, there was great respect among liberals for Senate the procedure of cloture,” noted Massie. “Ultimately, conservative legislators agreed with them and the option was never used. Now, with the shoe on the other foot, liberals are quick to do the very thing that once horrified them. They are refusing to hear the pleas from their colleagues and the American people to scrap their plan and start over.”

Massie continued: “The question to be answered is why are these senators willing to risk their careers and Obama his legacy to force such a miserable piece of legislation? Trying to obfuscate and confuse the use of reconciliation to pass a fundamental overhaul of such a substantial portion of the American economy is dishonest on a level likely never before imagined in the history of the legislative branch. Misrepresenting it as cost-cutting is morally opprobrious and fraudulent. But this is apparently not out of character for those determined to make a free citizenry dependent upon government from cradle to the grave.”

In a February 25 Wall Street Journal commentary, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) called the use of reconciliation to pass Obamacare “a total affront to the legislative process.” He noted that the process had previously been used only for incremental budget issues or those with wide bipartisan support.

“Individual Mandate” at Core of ObamaCare is Unconstitutional, New Report Concludes

by Tom Remington

Washington, D.C.: Arguments by backers of President Obama’s health care proposals that the U.S. Congress has the constitutional authority to mandate that individual Americans purchase health insurance through the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which permits the federal income tax, are incorrect.

So concludes a new “What Conservatives Think” publication, “Is a Health Insurance “Individual Mandate” Constitutional?” written by policy analyst Matt Patterson of the National Center For Public Policy Research.

Among the findings:

* Both the House and Senate versions of ObamaCare contain penalty taxes on Americans who do not have government-approved health insurance, the so-called “individual mandate.”

* Such a tax would function as a direct, or capitation, tax, as opposed to a tax on activity, such as excise or income taxes, and would therefore fall outside Congress’ authority to tax income granted by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.

* The Constitution places strict restrictions on Congress’ power to lay capitation taxes under But Article I, Sec. 9, which reads “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

* Exemptions for some people built into the Senate bill’s individual mandate tax would make it impossible for ObamaCare to meet this strict constitutional standard.

Says Patterson, “Some of the finest legal minds in the country have concluded that the enforcement provisions of ObamaCare’s individual mandate would violate the both spirit and the letter of the U.S. Constitution. Apparently, President Obama and members of Congress think they are smarter than these scholars – and smarter than the authors of the Constitution.”

“Is a Health Insurance “Individual Mandate” Constitutional?” is available online at http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT.html.

Obama Health Plan Would Lead to Public Option

by Tom Remington

Report Concludes President Obama’s Health Proposal Would Lead to Public Option

Washington, D.C.: President Obama’s new health care plan will all but guarantee the elimination of private insurance and lead to a single payer government-run health care system, says a new report, “White House Health Care Plan Contains Back Door to a Public Option” by policy analyst Matt Patterson of the National Center For Public Policy Research.

Among the findings:

* The President’s plan would create a new federal agency charged with monitoring health insurers to make sure that proposed premium increases are not “unreasonable” or “unjustified.” This agency could compel private insurers to lower premiums, offer rebates or “take other actions to make premiums affordable.”

* The President’s plan would also dictate that health insurers cover those with pre-existing conditions and saddle them with billion in new taxes and fees.

* Health insurance is one of the least profitable industries America. In terms of profit margin, in 2009 it ranked a dismal 87th out of 215 industries; their overall profit margin was a mere 3.4 percent.

* The President’s proposed combination of new taxes and price controls would cause a wave of health insurer bankruptcies, devastating the industry and reducing health insurance options for consumers.

* Eventually, the shrinking pool of private insurers would force the government to enact a single payer system to provide the insurance that Congress mandates that all Americans have.

Patterson calls Obama’s ploy “breathtakingly audacious,” noting, “Far from being able to keep the plan you like, the President’s health care plan seems designed to make sure you end up with only one option for your health care – the government.”

“White House Health Care Plan Contains Back Door to a Public Option,” by Matt Patterson is available on the National Center For Public Policy Research website at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA603.html.

Medicare is Cheating Seniors Out of Care, Says New Study

by Tom Remington

This is No Time to Expand the Government’s Role in Health Care, Says Think-Tank

Washington, D.C.: Chronically low Medicare reimbursement rates to physicians and hospitals are forcing doctors to limit the number of Medicare patients they see – or opt out of the program altogether – with devastating results to seniors’ health care options, says a new study, “Medicare Doctor Shortage Endangers Seniors’ Access to Care,” by Matt Patterson of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

From the Southwest to Florida, from the Midwest to New York, primary care doctors and specialists at both hospitals and private practices are turning away Medicare patients because they cannot afford to treat them, the study concludes.

The report analyzes government data, health care provider statistics, and news reports from across the country to paint a frightening picture of a government program failing the most vulnerable members of our society: our seniors. Among the findings:

* Some Mayo Clinic facilities are no longer accepting Medicare patients for primary care, turning thousands of seniors away from their trusted physicians.

* 30 percent of Medicare patients seeking a new primary care doctor reported difficulty finding one, including 17 percent who claim they had “big” problems finding a new doctor.

* Only 73 percent of Medicare participating family doctors are accepting new Medicare patients.

* Only 38 percent of Texas primary care physicians say they will accept new Medicare patients in the face of low Medicare reimbursements.

* More than half of California hospitals reported operating at a loss, due in part to low Medicare reimbursements.

* Hospitals in Iowa report trouble recruiting new doctors thanks to low Medicare reimbursements, and warn that the trend may be a threat to the quality of future care.

Says Patterson, “At a time when President Barack Obama is proposing yet another $1 trillion health care plan, Medicare – the original government health insurance program – is going bankrupt, underfunding doctors, and cheating seniors out of care. Why don’t we worry about meeting our existing health care obligations before we take on additional burdens?”

“Medicare Doctor Shortage Endangers Seniors’ Access to Care,” by Matt Patterson, is available on the National Center For Public Policy Research website at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA602.html.

Proposed Soda Taxes Fall Flat, Says Black Activist, Calls Demonization of Carbonated Beverages Yet Another Progressive Attack on Liberty

by Tom Remington

Washington, DC: Proposed soda taxes fall flat, according to Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the Project 21 black leadership network, who says the demonization of carbonated beverages is just another example of the progressive attack on liberty.

“After the Obama Administration tried to put itself between me and my doctor with its health care plan, the White House – along with Governor David Paterson and Mayor Gavin Newsom – now want to come between me and my can of soda,” said Borelli.

“Raising taxes during hard economic times is a horrible idea and it’s doomed to failure,” added Borelli. “Elected officials should be focused on lowering taxes to getting our economy growing in order to stimulate job growth. Instead you have Mayor Newsom in San Francisco and Governor Paterson in New York using the ‘obesity card’ to make up for their budget shortfalls. Punishing consumers, beverage companies, bottling companies and small business owners will only add to our economic troubles. These politicians need to put themselves on a spending diet and worry about their bloated budgets and let me worry about my waistline.”

Borelli continued: “And then you’ve got Michelle Obama and the Obama Administration leaning on schools and on the beverage and snack food industries to reform their wicked ways. In spreading their gospel against sugary treats, they will hurt the ability of Paterson and Newsom to reap their sin taxes. It’s clear the progressives can’t have it both ways despite their ambitions. The only one harmed in the end will be the American consumer.”

In New York, Governor David Paterson (D) has reintroduced a $1.28 per gallon tax on sugared sodas – a proposal he first proposed and later abandoned in 2009. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (D) has announced his intention to introduce legislation to impose a undisclosed fee on retailers selling sugary beverages. By targeting retailers, Newsom bypasses the need to subject the tax to a voter referendum.

At the same time, First Lady Michelle Obama is the public face of the Obama Administration’s legislative drive to attack the presence of soda and snacks in schools. On February 9, she announced the “Let’s Move” campaign to allegedly “end the American plague of childhood obesity in a single generation.” While she asserted the role of the government would be “minor” in an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America” program, her husband is creating a federal task force on the issue charged with formulating a “long-term action plan.” Additionally, Obama Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said on February 8 that he intends to ban candy and soda from schools. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) is expected to introduce legislation codifying this ban as part of the reauthorization of school meal programs.

“Social engineering is at the heart of the progressive movement,” Borelli continued. “The Obama Administration sought a cap-and-trade emissions policy that would raise energy prices and thus force Americans to use less energy. Then it was government mandates on health issues. Now, it’s discriminatory taxes on food and beverages. It seems there is nothing the so-called progressives will not tax and no liberty they will not assault to support their worldview.”

How does the U.S. Government get it so wrong so often

by Greg Farber

Oh no ! Another governmental and big pharma scientific malfunction, oops, but we should trust u.s. corporate science because gosh man it has been peer reviewed, you’ll notice in the 1970s the good science which refutes the bad “science” that was pushed on the u.s. citizens concerning the dnagers of sugar was mocked and suppressed, only to be found 100% correct today.. If they can’t get human biology right well how the heck can they get wild life biology right ? And when they make a huge mistake like this shown in the videos and refuse to correct it, let alone admit to it.. Well credibility for peer reviewed science does not exist.. Their liars people.. By the way who owns all those sugar refinery’s ? Hmmmm… Don’t you know ? Knights of Malta do.. Don Rumsfeld for one does.. He has pushed Aspartame on us for decades..

The Hazards of Sugar (Part 4 of 9)

The Hazards of Sugar (Part 5 of 9)

How does the U.S. Government get it so wrong so often ? They don’t,This corporate government does not make mistakes. It is all intentional. Still trust em ?

Diocese Will Pay $9.8 million to Alaska Abuse Victims

by Al Remington

After laundering 200 million dollars, for herself, paying off the perverts should be a cake-walk. The world should nationalize a pope, priest and pervert month; every month , until they are all found.

“Under the plan for reorganization, $9.8 million will go into a fund for close to 300 victims. Another $2.5 million is going to lawyers, accountants and other professionals. Payments to individuals will be decided case-by-case by a mediator, depending on a variety of factors including the nature and severity of abuse, the age of the victim at the time it started, and whether the perpetrator was in a position of trust.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Donald MacDonald approved the plan at a hearing Monday morning in Anchorage.

“I’ve never had a case like this in my nearly 20 years on the bench,” the judge told the lawyers and Catholic church leaders gathered in court. The sexual abuse claims made this bankruptcy especially challenging, he said.

The diocese filed for reorganization in March 2008 in the wake of more than 100 state-court lawsuits accusing priests and volunteers of sexual abuse. After the bankruptcy case was filed, the claims grew. Many arise from abuse decades ago.”
I think we can extend the range from decades ago, somewhat further; with a couple more zeros, anyway.

So Why Did Scott Brown Win In Massachusetts?

by Tom Remington

I watched this last night on the Sean Hannity Show. Michelle Malkin recommends that every democrat leader should watch this video and I agree. However, both Dems and Republicans need to watch this video because it pretty much tells how Brown won. Hello! It isn’t because Americans are becoming more conservative. They’re just not ready for full fledged, one party politics of shoving policy down our throats.

What “Health-Care Reform” Is Really All About

by Greg Farber

What “Health-Care Reform” Is Really All About

A Public Policy Reality Check

Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances.”
-R. W. Emerson

Those who have gotten into the habit of assuming authority to dictate to the rest of us are briskly rolling along with their latest massive power-grab– the commandeering (and therefore looting, to one degree or another) of some 17% or so of the aggregate economic activity of the American people. This impending offense against the fundamental law also involves the seizure of decision-making authority over one of the most profoundly intimate and significant aspects of life for everyone in the country.

In regard to that latter aspect of this pernicious “reform” plan, I will point out that just as control over a man’s food (or means of producing or acquiring food) is control over his will, so control over a man’s access to health-care is also a control over his will. This is why the Founders denied control over either of these things to government. Doubtless our despot class wakes up every morning marveling that vast swaths of the American people continue to not only tolerate its usurpations, but continue to finance them, too, even while protesting against them with all the appearance of sincere opposition. To borrow from P. J. O’Rourke’s pithy observation, it’s like a parent admonishing a wayward child with, “No more drinking and driving, do you understand?!” followed by, “Okay, you can use the car again tonight, and here’s some more whiskey…”

Anyway, the sheep-like and delusional cognitive dissonance of far too many Americans is not the point here today. Right now, I just want to focus on the real purpose of this “health-care reform” plan, which is 180º opposite what is claimed by those seeking to fasten it upon us.

We have all heard ad nauseum that 46 million Americans aren’t covered by health insurance. I believe that factoid is more-or-less accurate; certainly it’s close enough to true for the government’s purpose, which is to communicate the fact that a meaningfully-large number of people aren’t in the insurance pool.

Here’s what ISN’T true: “Health-care reform” is needed to provide health insurance to these poor folks since they clearly can’t get it on their own.

The sordid truth is that insofar as health-care itself is concerned, the only real interest the “health-care reformers” have in this large chunk of Americans is that of FORCING them into the insurance pool so that THEY can subsidize OTHER people’s health care expenses. The fact is, the 46 million uninsured are far-and-away mostly young, healthy Americans whose only real major health risk is an auto accident, for which they are already covered by their car insurance. They don’t need health insurance, and when they don’t have it, it is most likely that they don’t want it– at least not badly enough to forego other goods in order to pay for it.

Here are the figures: Three-quarters of these folks have jobs; 63% of them are under 34 years old; and 75% have earnings at or above the “poverty line”, with nearly half of the total group earning double that level or more (the stats I consulted go to an open-ended top range of “over 500% of the poverty line” with 11% of the uninsured being in this category, and another 54% falling between 100% and 499% of the “poverty line”). (Source: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services ‘Overview of the Uninsured’, 2005). Doubtless some number of those in the 25% identified as earning at or below the “poverty line” are young adults being subsidized in many of their expenses by parents and other family members, and, though it may be an insignificant factor in this group, statistics of this sort only account for “earnings”, not wealth. All in all, while certainly there are some in the group who simply don’t have the means to buy insurance even if they did want to, this appears to be a small fraction of the total.

Nonetheless, “reform” advocates pepper us with stories suggesting a running tragedy due to the fact that everyone isn’t forced at gunpoint to buy insurance. Somehow, these stories don’t end with anything like, “Having learned of Daisy Mae’s medical and financial troubles, I paid for her operation myself…”; or even, “I’ve set up a fund to help Daisy Mae cover her bills– contributions can be sent to…” Instead, these tales inevitably end with the assertion that the only solution to the troubles of folks like Daisy Mae is a government takeover of both the health-care industry and the elimination of your freedom to choose how you will interact with that industry.

Simultaneously, we hear stories about “the uninsured” burdening the rest of us by using hospital emergency rooms as health-care providers, without paying the resulting bills (something Daisy Mae hasn’t caught on to, apparently). These tales are floated in an effort to confuse story-line 1 (that this reform is for THEIR good) with another (this reform is for YOUR good), in order to keep people from considering the overall subject without a pre-installed spin.

Let’s give this a moment’s thought, though. Even were the unpaid use of emergency rooms by the uninsured widespread, how would this cost me (or you) anything, directly? It wouldn’t, and it doesn’t. The only way in which this sort of thing is capable of affecting us is insofar as hospitals are forced to provide such services, and we are forced to pay for them. These things are both true to some extent right now, but only because of existing government intrusions into the health-care market, in which most hospitals are under government mandates of one kind or another, and their expenses of compliance are financed either by general taxation or by government-imposed insurance-premium upcharges.

The current “reform” actually seeks to magnify government intrusion, with the specific and deliberate effect of INCREASING the degree to which you and I are forced to subsidize the consumption of medical services by those not able to foot the bill themselves. After all, demand for subsidized health care will simply shift from a stigmatized, inconvenient, relatively small-scale and doubtless at least somewhat reluctant abuse of emergency-room services to an acceptable– indeed entitled– consumption of services by a group still being paid for by the rest of us but now doing their consuming by way of claims on an “insurance policy”. This isn’t reform– it is magnification of an existing problem, with merely a heavy layer of lipstick and legal gibberish to give it an appearance of “change”.

Serious reform of America’s health-care industry would take an opposite tack from the one flogged by the political class. It would seek to increase supply by eliminating restrictions on the number of slots in medical schools, “certificate of need” bottlenecks for medical equipment, and other government hobbles placed on the number of providers available to serve the market. It would eliminate the enormous price-support generated by government third-party-payment structures like Medicare, replacing them, if at all, with means-tested reimbursement programs. Simply put, serious reform would restore the health-care industry to a free market, just like the one that manages to amply supply us all with our food, clothing, shelter, entertainment and everything else.

Sadly, serious reform is the last thing on the “reformer’s” minds. All they want are tens of millions of new participants in the insurance pool who WON’T be consuming services commensurate with what is being taken from them, and who will thus be subsidizing those who DO take more than they pay in.

This massive seizure of wealth from private hands will help paper-over the inherent defects in the existing government-controlled, faction-serving structure for a few more years (and as a side benefit, provide the statists with another pretext for snooping into everyone’s affairs). At the same time, it will just make the real problem worse, as the last vestiges of freedom in the health-care market are broomed into the dustbin.
—Pete Hendrickson

Three Questions for the Congressional Leadership

by Tom Remington

Washington, DC: Are you “open,” “honest,” and ethical”? These three questions to the Congressional leadership form the crux of a new paper released today by the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington.

The paper, “Bad Faith & Broken Promises: Accountability and Transparency Casualties of Health Care Debate,” by policy analyst Matt Patterson, asks House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

* Is it “honest” to hide the true cost of your legislation with budgetary gimmicks in which three years of new taxes precede the bulk of the spending, making your program seem more affordable than it really is in an artificial budgetary window?

* Is it “open” for the Congressional leadership to “secretly craft the final bill behind closed doors,” far from the prying eyes of the press, the public, and the rest of Congress, or to have important procedural votes in the middle of the night, or pass critical legislation on Christmas Eve, when most sane people are blissfully distracted from the machinations on Capitol Hill?

* Is it “ethical” to buy the votes of recalcitrant members of your caucus with hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in backroom deals, such as “the inclusion of $100-$300 million in added federal aid for Medicaid recipients in Louisiana, the home state of Sen. Mary Landrieu,” in return for her vote, or the offer to Senator Ben Nelson of “a permanent exemption from the state share of Medicaid expansion” for his home state of Nebraska, in exchange for his vote?

“Despite promises made by Congressional leaders, they have shepherded health care legislation through Congress in a manner that is demonstrably secretive, unethical and dishonest,” says Patterson. “Promise after promise made by the Congressional leadership to conduct an open, bi-partisan process to reform health care has been shamelessly broken. It’s really quite astounding; Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama, don’t even try to pretend to hold to their many and frequent promises to conduct open and fair negotiations to reform American health care.”

Patterson concludes: “The question we have to ask ourselves is: Why have they done this in secret? What is it about this process that they don’t want the public, the press, or even fellow members of Congress to see?”

The paper, “Bad Faith & Broken Promises: Accountability and Transparency Casualties of Health Care Debate,” is available online at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA596.html at the National Center for Public Policy Research website.

Next Page »