The Supreme Court's decision yesterday rewriting the reason why Obamacare should remain a law is right on a constitutional basis but wrong on so many other levels.
From the Supreme Court Opinion:
The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First, the Government arguesthat Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause. Under that theory, Congress mayorder individuals to buy health insurance because thefailure to do so affects interstate commerce, and could undercut the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms. Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nonetheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress’s power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax.
Chief Justice Roberts writing the opinion for the majority opined that the individual mandate was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, therefore it is "may be reasonably characterized as a tax".
The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product,on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.
Given its expansive scope, it is no surprise that Congress has employed the commerce power in a wide variety of ways to address the pressing needs of the time. But Congress has never attempted to rely on that power tocompel individuals not engaged in commerce to purchase an unwanted product.
At the very least, we should "pause to consider the implications of the Government’s arguments" when confronted with such new conceptions of federal power.
The individual mandate, however, does not regulateexisting commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product,on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Congress addressed the insurance problem by ordering everyone to buy insurance. Under the Government’s theory, Congress could address the diet problem by ordering everyone to buy vegetables.
The Framers gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it, and for over 200 years both our decisions and Congress’s actions have reflected this understanding. There is no reason to depart from that understanding now.
Everyone will likely participate in the markets for food, clothing, transportation, shelter, or energy; that does not authorize Congress to direct them to purchase particular products in those or other markets today. The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individualfrom cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular transactions. Any police power toregulate individuals as such, as opposed to their activities, remains vested in the States.
The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity. Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing Congress to "regulate Commerce." Applying these principles, the individual mandate cannot be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an essential component of the insurance reforms.
That is not the end of the matter. Because the Commerce Clause does not support the individual mandate, it is necessary to turn to the Government’s second argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’senumerated power to "lay and collect Taxes."
Instead, the Government asks us to read the mandate not as ordering individuals to buy insurance, but rather as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.
But, for the reasons explained above, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether the Government’s alternative reading of the statute—that itonly imposes a tax on those without insurance—is a reasonable one.
And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, itmay be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.
It is of course true that the Act describes the payment as a "penalty," not a "tax."
The same analysis here suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty: First, for most Americans the amount due will be far less than the price of insurance, and, by statute, it can never be more.
The joint dissenters argue that we cannot uphold §5000A as a tax because Congress did not "frame" it as such.
The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.
The Obama team is too busy from the White House putting a spin on it that it is a penalty and not a tax. WOW!
"It's a penalty, because you have a choice. You don't have a choice to pay your taxes, right?" Carney said.
What a moron. Do people CHOOSE not to pay their taxes???
I guess that is why Obama mandated 16,000 more IRS agents in the bill. He too thought it wasn't a tax!
Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts
Friday, June 29, 2012
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Obama Needs To Revisit History
Obama vs. Marbury vs. Madison As published in the Wall Street Journal.
President Obama is a former president of the Harvard Law Review and famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. But did he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?
That's a fair question after Mr. Obama's astonishing remarks on Monday at the White House when he ruminated for the first time in public on the Supreme Court's recent ObamaCare deliberations. "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," he declared.
I believe Obama misspoke. He meant to day Democratically Controlled Congress. Then his attack makes more sense.
Click on the link above to read the whole Opinion piece in the WSJ.
President Obama is a former president of the Harvard Law Review and famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. But did he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?
That's a fair question after Mr. Obama's astonishing remarks on Monday at the White House when he ruminated for the first time in public on the Supreme Court's recent ObamaCare deliberations. "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," he declared.
I believe Obama misspoke. He meant to day Democratically Controlled Congress. Then his attack makes more sense.
Click on the link above to read the whole Opinion piece in the WSJ.
Obama Thinks The Supreme Court is an Enemy of the State
For the second time in two years President Obama is embarassing the Presidency with Chicago-style thuggery politics.
Back in 2010 Obama, during the State of the Union address, attacked the Supreme Court's decision on campaign finance. Most voters know that this President's malignant narcissism forces him into trying to provoke and manipulate those who disagree with his positions or Chicago politics. He truly believes his grandiose legislation should turn into irrevocable actions by anyone.
He made this statement at that State of the Union address.
Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."
Justice Alito promptly rejected his statement during the Address by mouthing "It's not true." The President has a Supreme Court Justice tell him he is misleading or lying to the people.
The American Thinker wrote this assessment on Obamacare.
Obama is going for the "nuclear option" to force very bad and very toxic medicine down our throats. He is willing to sacrifice his congressional majorities to get the biggest, most budget-busting entitlement ever imagined into the permanent fabric of American national life. The main beneficiaries of Obamacare will be Obama's ego and the Permanent Left.
This is his chance to be FDR, and he can't control his need for that glorified image. He is therefore crossing the Rubicon -- making an irreversible decision that will define his presidency forever, win or lose. This is not just another grandiose gesture. Obama now stands revealed for what he is.
On Tuesday President Barack Obama during an official Presidential visit took the opportunity to initiate an unsettling attack the Supreme Court once again.
“I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said. “Well, here’s a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that, and not take that step.”
To be clear, I believe the individual mandate is both good policy and sound law, well within Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause. I think overturning the mandate would be bad not only for the country but for the court itself. Especially in the wake of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, it would look like a political act to have the five Republican-appointed justices voting to strike down the law and the four Democratic appointees voting to uphold it.
This President once taught constitutional law yet he violates one of its basic premises. It is not for the executive branch to interfere, bully, or manipulate the judicial branch. It didn't take long for this egregious attack to backfire.
Appeals Court Calls President's Bluff on Obamacare
President Barack Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court appeared to backfire Tuesday, when the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order giving the Justice Department until noon Thursday to state whether the administration truly believes courts lack the authority to strike down mandates that they determine are unconstitutional.
On Monday, Obama said that striking down his signature healthcare legislation would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” and would demonstrate a lack of “judicial restraint” by the Supreme Court.
He also pointed out that the nine Supreme Court justices are unelected, suggesting that it would therefore be undemocratic for them to overturn Obamacare, which narrowly eked through Congress by a seven vote margin in the House of Representatives.
“This is liberals in shock over watching their side being demolished in oral arguments,” Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer said Tuesday, pointing out the courts have had the authority to strike down unconstitutional provisions for over 200 years. “And [they are] trying to bully the Supreme Court into ending up on their side in a case which they clearly had lost intellectually and logically.”
The order from the 5th Circuit for the Justice Department to clarify its position on judicial authority came during a separate challenge to Obamacare brought by physician-owned hospitals.
As a Justice Department lawyer began arguing the government’s case, Appeals Judge Jerry Smith interrupted the presentation to ask if the 5th Circuit Court had the legal authority to strike down a law it finds to be unconstitutional. CBS News reports that when the government lawyer answered affirmatively, the judge stated that it was not clear to “many of us” that the president agrees.
The three-judge panel then gave the Justice Department until noon Thursday to provide a three-page letter clarifying whether it believes courts have the authority to pass judgment on the constitutionality of laws.
Obama knows he is wrong but the narcissism prevents him from not being himself.
Back in 2010 Obama, during the State of the Union address, attacked the Supreme Court's decision on campaign finance. Most voters know that this President's malignant narcissism forces him into trying to provoke and manipulate those who disagree with his positions or Chicago politics. He truly believes his grandiose legislation should turn into irrevocable actions by anyone.
He made this statement at that State of the Union address.
Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."
Justice Alito promptly rejected his statement during the Address by mouthing "It's not true." The President has a Supreme Court Justice tell him he is misleading or lying to the people.
The American Thinker wrote this assessment on Obamacare.
Obama is going for the "nuclear option" to force very bad and very toxic medicine down our throats. He is willing to sacrifice his congressional majorities to get the biggest, most budget-busting entitlement ever imagined into the permanent fabric of American national life. The main beneficiaries of Obamacare will be Obama's ego and the Permanent Left.
This is his chance to be FDR, and he can't control his need for that glorified image. He is therefore crossing the Rubicon -- making an irreversible decision that will define his presidency forever, win or lose. This is not just another grandiose gesture. Obama now stands revealed for what he is.
On Tuesday President Barack Obama during an official Presidential visit took the opportunity to initiate an unsettling attack the Supreme Court once again.
“I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said. “Well, here’s a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that, and not take that step.”
To be clear, I believe the individual mandate is both good policy and sound law, well within Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause. I think overturning the mandate would be bad not only for the country but for the court itself. Especially in the wake of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, it would look like a political act to have the five Republican-appointed justices voting to strike down the law and the four Democratic appointees voting to uphold it.
This President once taught constitutional law yet he violates one of its basic premises. It is not for the executive branch to interfere, bully, or manipulate the judicial branch. It didn't take long for this egregious attack to backfire.
Appeals Court Calls President's Bluff on Obamacare
President Barack Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court appeared to backfire Tuesday, when the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order giving the Justice Department until noon Thursday to state whether the administration truly believes courts lack the authority to strike down mandates that they determine are unconstitutional.
On Monday, Obama said that striking down his signature healthcare legislation would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” and would demonstrate a lack of “judicial restraint” by the Supreme Court.
He also pointed out that the nine Supreme Court justices are unelected, suggesting that it would therefore be undemocratic for them to overturn Obamacare, which narrowly eked through Congress by a seven vote margin in the House of Representatives.
“This is liberals in shock over watching their side being demolished in oral arguments,” Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer said Tuesday, pointing out the courts have had the authority to strike down unconstitutional provisions for over 200 years. “And [they are] trying to bully the Supreme Court into ending up on their side in a case which they clearly had lost intellectually and logically.”
The order from the 5th Circuit for the Justice Department to clarify its position on judicial authority came during a separate challenge to Obamacare brought by physician-owned hospitals.
As a Justice Department lawyer began arguing the government’s case, Appeals Judge Jerry Smith interrupted the presentation to ask if the 5th Circuit Court had the legal authority to strike down a law it finds to be unconstitutional. CBS News reports that when the government lawyer answered affirmatively, the judge stated that it was not clear to “many of us” that the president agrees.
The three-judge panel then gave the Justice Department until noon Thursday to provide a three-page letter clarifying whether it believes courts have the authority to pass judgment on the constitutionality of laws.
Obama knows he is wrong but the narcissism prevents him from not being himself.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
So What To Do About Healthcare
In the face of almost certain defeat for Team Obama and Obamacare what laws should be passed or changed to address the healthcare costs employers and citizens face?
1. If Obama truly wanted this to be about INTERSTATE commerce allow all insurance companies to cross state lines and sell their products. The government allows that practice in Medicare Part D.
2. Create larger pools of available insureds to shop for their insurance. Right now companies are treated individually and cannot combine to purchase insurance for the most part.
3. Continue coverage for children to age 26. Most are healthy and it shouldn't raise premium rates that much.
4. Allow patients to shop hospitals from a database that allows charges and outcomes for healthcare delivered by the hosiptal to be posted.
5. Encourage healthy lifestyles to curb the need for reactive healthcare in the first place.
6. Get electronic medical records in place NOW. Allow physicians to see your entire medical profile in one place for better care planning. Encourage this cost saving technology innovation.
7. Ten percent of the population consumes 63 percent and one percent consume 20 percent of the total health-care dollars in this country. Fifty percent of them consume nothing at all. Healthcare professionals have to get a better handle and get those 10 percenters under better control to reduce healthcare spending.
8. Tort reform. Whether you believe it or not physicians practice defensive medicine. While actual medical malpractice awards may be less or around one percent of healthcare costs the procedures, x-rays, and scans ordered to maintain a proper defense should the need arise add much more to those costs.
9. Be careful when you get hung up on the profit side of healthcare. Lehigh Valley and Geisinger didnt' build their institutions with losses. Most profits go to technology advances when you are talking about providers. Focus on insurer profits. They don't add to the system in a meaningful way. Blue Cross took its profits and put them aside rather than to work.
10. The emergency room is exactly that. It is not for the common cold, the flu, or aches and pains. It is for true emergencies.
11. Have people pay for their medical care first. Having a card in the pocket makes it too easy to waste healthcare dollars. Reimburse them after they shop for their healthcare like they do most other purchases.
12. Obamacare will do nothing to lower the cost of insurance. Competition will. Making insurers and healthcare providers compete for your business will go a long way to lowering those costs.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Judge Strikes Down Obama Healthcare Law
In this Times Leader report U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson struck down Obamacare as unconstitional. His decision means that the Obama admininstration position regarding healthcare and the threshold to sustain itself as interstate commerce does not meet the litmus test based on past cases.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Barletta Vs. Kanjorski Part 2
In the next part of the debate between incumbent Paul Kanjorski and challenger Lou Barletta healthcare became the topic of discussion. Moderator Bill Kelly went to Andree Phillips for the question. She stated she went to a meeting yesterday comprised of senior citizens. She "voir dired" Kanjorski about their concerns over insurance, Social Security and their coverage over provisions found in Obamacare. "I can tell you there were 30 people in that room and they were all afraid, they were afraid because they see their Medicare premiums going up and their coverage going down." "What are you going to do to improve that situation for our senior citizens?"
Kanjorski's response "First of all I want to tell 'em and I am sorry you couldn't tell 'em that the present law passed has no effect PRESENTLY on their premiums going up or their services going down. The law hasn't been put into effect and won't go into effect for 4 years. So any impact on healthcare costs in the United States have nothing to do with the healthcare bill passed by the law recently." His platitudes went on to bring in pre-existing conditions. He also made the claim "In this country 1 in 5 employees are imprisoned to their job and are in economic serivitude as a result of the failure of healthcare and coverage in the United States. That is horrendous. I've been in Congress long enough to see the Clinton's try to get healthcare 15 years ago and a failure. Now President Obama brought it through, we carried it through but always with the understanding just as we did with Social Security and Medicare, that adjustments and changes will have to be made in Amendments to make sure this very complicated Act actually works. In affects 17% of our Gross Domestic Product." He rambled on about touting some benefits of the act including "making it more efficient for companies to operate in this country" and "closing the hole on drugs in this country".
Then he said "And quite frankly the Health Act has no ramifications or application to Medicare that senior citizens are under....I just want to leave with one thing. Anyone watching this debate tonight. Be sure of one thing. If you are a senior citizen, if you are under the protection of Medicare you will not be impacted in any way negatively by what the Congress has done". Moderator Kelly called the time on his response at this point.
Barletta countered "Who believes that thirty million more people will be included in the healtcare plan and we are actually going to save money because the federal government is going to run it. Nobody believes that, nobody believes that will happen at all. As a matter of fact Congressman we already saw the effects of your vote on the healthcare bill when Mercy Hospital announced, uh, is talking about selling their three Catholic hospitals, uh, as part of the decision is based on the effect that Obamacare will have on the hospitals. This healthcare bill will chase doctors out of business."
From the Heritage Foundation Side Effects: Massachusetts Seniors Will Lose Medicare Advantage Plans in 2011.
From The Weekly Standard Obamacare Forces 22,000 Seniors to Lose Medicare Advantage
From the Palm Beach Post Seniors set to lose Medicare Advantage perk
From the PRN Newswire Local Seniors Could Lose Their Medicare Advantage Coverage Under House Bill; Approximately 3 Million Seniors in 22 States, Including New Hampshire, Could Lose Their Medicare Advantage Coverage
Read this article that appears on the National Review Online.
Seniors who retain Medicare Advantage plans in 2011 should not be fooled into thinking that they have dodged Obamacare’s cuts to Medicare. Unless Obamacare is repealed, their time will come.
What did Paul Kanjorski tell seniors?
"And quite frankly the Health Act has no ramifications or application to Medicare that senior citizens are under....I just want to leave with one thing. Anyone watching this debate tonight. Be sure of one thing. If you are a senior citizen, if you are under the protection of Medicare you will not be impacted in any way negatively by what the Congress has done".
Was that Kanjorski's second damnable lie? He is listening to his mentor, Nancy Pelosi. Of course she was the one who said "But we have to pass this bill so you can find out what is in it".
Protecting Medicare??? Actually not, just hurting seniors.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Kanjorski Demolished 11th District Chances With Voting Record
In today's Wall Street Journal the following Opinion on "Obamacare and the Election" is writtend by its editorial staff. Republicans should heed the advice.
Republicans have made intellectual progress on health care since the 1990s, but it remains outside their political comfort zone and certain (or shall we say uncertain) Members still believe the issue is a loser. Yet ObamaCare has scrambled everything.
For one, the plan's march to the sea is only beginning and the trail of destruction will grow. The last six months have seen 2011 premium increases as high as 9% due to ObamaCare; multibillion-dollar corporate writedowns by Verizon, AT&T, Caterpillar and others; disruption in the insurance markets leading to the erasure of child-only policies and other types of specialty coverage as shown in the McDonald's imbroglio; the Administration beginning to impose price controls on premiums; insurers withdrawing private options from Medicare Advantage; and Democratic protection of a 1099 tax reporting mandate that will slam small businesses.
Republicans should be repeating all of these tangible harms in a litany, while predicting the damage to come. Every wonk in Washington knows this bill creates a new entitlement that will transfer the costs of covering the uninsured to the government but do nothing to control underlying health costs. Democrats will embrace more restrictions on care of the kind we are already seeing in Massachusetts since Mitt Romney's ObamaCare dress rehearsal.
Yesterday the Standard Speaker published this Opinion about the stimulus package, Stimulus money being spent just as advertised. Okay if they think so. Look at this article, Spending stimulus money is key challenge in Pa., that appeared in the Delaware County Daily Times.
According to state officials, recipients of the roughly $29 billion doled out for Pennsylvania stimulus projects were given one simple, five-letter word of instruction: S-P-E-N-D.
"There has been a tremendous focus on spending this money quickly in order to spur the economy quickly," said Mary Rucci, director of citizens' awareness at the Pennsylvania Stimulus Accountability Office in Harrisburg.
"There is a big focus on spending rapidly and I think in many areas it's taken place and it's been a change for state government," she said. "There was a tremendous effort across the board to identify shovel-ready projects and to accelerate processes however possible to get the funds spent."
With more than $10.5 billion spent so far, Rucci said the state looked on track to spend its share of the $787 billion stimulus package by 2014.
They just don't get it. People need jobs and they need them NOW, not in 2014.
So what does the Pennsylvania legislature do about it. Pa. House adjourns for elections, leaving policy items unsettled
HARRISBURG - With the bang of a gavel Wednesday, the state House recessed so members could return to their districts to run for reelection.
But the fate of a number of big-ticket policy items remains up in the air, among them a tax on extraction of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale. Other bills appear destined for legislative burial, including one that would crack down on distracted driving.
Mr. Eachus and Company is worried about re-election and their jobs, not ours. There isn't one word mentioned about job creation. Unbelievable.
JOBS AND HEALTHCARE. If I was running as a Republican I would utter those words over and over and over til the end of the campaign.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Kanjorski And Obamacare Force Sale of NEPA Hospital
This report from WNEP-TV16 details the sale of an almost century old Catholic hospital system due in part to the provisions found in the Obamacare healthcare reform legislation supported by Paul Kanjorski.
The Sisters of Mercy first opened Mercy Hospital in Scranton in 1917. Now the facility and all other Mercy locations in the area are up for sale.
"There is always sadness and mourning when you think of letting go of anything but the Sisters of Mercy are strongly supportive of this decision because we do understand the realities of health care and we do think it's best for the community," said Sister Marie Parker of Mercy Health Partners.
She and Mercy Health Partners CEO Kevin Cook said they are already in talks with potential buyers.
They said Mercy isn't struggling but, they added, now is the time to make a sale.
"We are in position of strength and it's always better to make a move for the future from that position," Sister Marie Parke added.
"Actually we're doing well. We're ahead of budget for the year. It's more that when we look out over the landscape of health care over the next five years and the needs of these facilities, the needs of this community, we understand a different level of investment will be needed than what we can do on our own," Cook said.
They said much of that required investment is the result of the health care reform bill passed in Washington.
The CEO said it means the need for more spending and less federal reimbursements.
"Health care reform is absolutely playing a role. Was it the precipitating factor in this decision? No, but was it a factor in our planning over the next five years? Absolutely," Cook added.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Saturday, June 12, 2010
To All Those Who Supported Kanjorski And Obama On Obamacare
About half of you will more than likely face changes in your healthcare coverage although taxpayers were promised they could keep their present healthcare if they so desired. In this Wall Street Journal article the story is told of a failed promise.
Draft regulations being developed by the Obama administration say more than half of employer health care plans may lose their grandfathered status and be required to comply with the health overhaul bill approved March 23.
The guidelines are likely to touch off fresh disputes between President Obama and opponents of the health care bill. Mr. Obama promised as part of his health overhaul that Americans who liked their insurance coverage could keep it. The regulations govern so-called grandfathered status, which allowed employers to keep offering a plan even if it doesn't meet all the bill's requirements.
The regulations, being written by the U.S. Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury departments, are expected to be finalized soon.
"These rules are extremely strict," said James Gelfand, health policy director at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which had opposed the bill. "Almost no plan is going to be able to maintain grandfathered status."
Ohhh..those Democrats....they are just the foolers aren't they??
Obama and Kanjorski...The Right Team....What a bunch of bull...Clara isn't yelling "Where's the beef?" She's yelling "Where's the jobs to save my home from foreclosure?" Kanjorski on lowering mortgage foreclosures in 2007 Double digit jobless rate in Northeastern Pennsylvania May 2010, foreclosures up 20.1% in 2009 vs. 2008, foreclosures on the rise in Luzerne County, June 2010
Draft regulations being developed by the Obama administration say more than half of employer health care plans may lose their grandfathered status and be required to comply with the health overhaul bill approved March 23.
The guidelines are likely to touch off fresh disputes between President Obama and opponents of the health care bill. Mr. Obama promised as part of his health overhaul that Americans who liked their insurance coverage could keep it. The regulations govern so-called grandfathered status, which allowed employers to keep offering a plan even if it doesn't meet all the bill's requirements.
The regulations, being written by the U.S. Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury departments, are expected to be finalized soon.
"These rules are extremely strict," said James Gelfand, health policy director at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which had opposed the bill. "Almost no plan is going to be able to maintain grandfathered status."
Ohhh..those Democrats....they are just the foolers aren't they??
Obama and Kanjorski...The Right Team....What a bunch of bull...Clara isn't yelling "Where's the beef?" She's yelling "Where's the jobs to save my home from foreclosure?" Kanjorski on lowering mortgage foreclosures in 2007 Double digit jobless rate in Northeastern Pennsylvania May 2010, foreclosures up 20.1% in 2009 vs. 2008, foreclosures on the rise in Luzerne County, June 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Kanjorski Tries To Placate Seniors With Misinformation
Standard Speaker staffer Jim Dino, a great reporter, wrote this article about Paul Kanjorski's appearance at the Greater Hazleton Chamber of Commerce's Red Carpet Breakfast yesterday.
In the Paul Kanjorski tradition of "stretching the facts to win an election" he tries to reassure seniors that the recently passed healthcare legislation would not harm Medicare.
"I talked to a senior citizen recently, and he told me, 'Don't let them ruin Medicare,' " Kanjorski said. "The bill actually helps Medicare by closing part of the doughnut hole with prescription drugs. The bill also extends care under Medicare. Don't let anybody tell you this bill hurts Medicare.
A funny thing happened on the way to page A13 of the same newspaper. The headline reads "Seniors fear new law will hurt Medicare". The link will take you to Yahoo news since the SS choose not to publish the Associated Press article on its website.
There's no doubt that broad cuts in projected Medicare payments to insurance plans, hospitals, nursing homes and other service providers will sting. Those cuts will impact on the provision of care through more staffing cuts and less new services. Is that "extending care"?
This line is particularly telling. Obama is hoping that most will eventually conclude the plusses outweigh the minuses. Mr. President, shouldn't there be more than just hope. Or was this the part of Hope and Change you were talking about. Paul, if the President only has hope how can you state "It will".
The bill may close the donut hole in Medicare Part D but it taxes the pharmaceutical industry to pay for that provision which will ultimately be passed onto the consumer through higher premiums.
The next problem is for retirees and their prescription benefit. This article from Richard Lowry highlights the problem corporate America is facing with this new bill.
Companies began to receive a tax-free, deductible subsidy in 2003 to continue prescription-drug coverage for their retirees, a ploy to keep the firms from dumping retirees into the new government prescription-drug program. Outside experts and big employers counseled against ending the deductibility, pointing out that it would adversely affect the companies' financial statements immediately (accounting rules require that corporations note the long-term effect of the new liability right away).
These warnings got shelved under a category ensuring their brusque dismissal: Information Inconvenient to the Passage of Health-Care Reform.
Retirees will be forced to pay more for their current coverage which could amount to several hundred dollars per month as a result of the removal of the subsidy.
It is evidenced by the required SEC filings made by several large corporations including AT&T, Catepillar, and Deere & Co.
Last week, AT&T announced it will take an immediate $1 billion write-down thanks to a new tax in the health bill that will cause Caterpillar ($100 million) and Deere & Co. ($150 million), among other large employers, to do the same. The benefits consultancy Towers Watson estimates that the change may reduce corporate profits by as much as $14 billion over time.
The companies will reconsider providing prescription-drug coverage for their retirees at all. The Employee Benefit Research Institute calculates that companies could now save $1,000 per beneficiary by handing them off to the government. As many as 2 million more retirees could end up on the government program, according to James Klein of the American Benefits Council. These retirees might wonder about the truthfulness of Obama's constant promise that everyone can keep his current insurance.
The CBO estimated that the new treatment of the subsidy would generate roughly $5 billion in revenue. If companies stop taking the subsidy, that revenue disappears, while the costs of the drug program increase. A Towers Watson study stipulates that "employer plans generally provide much better protection than the standard Medicare benefit." And subsidizing those employer plans is cheaper to the government than providing the coverage itself.
Whenver Paul Kanjorski speaks the facts will always triumph over the rhetoric. Seniors will not only be paying significantly more for their helathcare; they will be forced into a government program.
It isn't enough to own the banks and the auto industry. Obamacare wants the healthcare industry too.
In the Paul Kanjorski tradition of "stretching the facts to win an election" he tries to reassure seniors that the recently passed healthcare legislation would not harm Medicare.
"I talked to a senior citizen recently, and he told me, 'Don't let them ruin Medicare,' " Kanjorski said. "The bill actually helps Medicare by closing part of the doughnut hole with prescription drugs. The bill also extends care under Medicare. Don't let anybody tell you this bill hurts Medicare.
A funny thing happened on the way to page A13 of the same newspaper. The headline reads "Seniors fear new law will hurt Medicare". The link will take you to Yahoo news since the SS choose not to publish the Associated Press article on its website.
There's no doubt that broad cuts in projected Medicare payments to insurance plans, hospitals, nursing homes and other service providers will sting. Those cuts will impact on the provision of care through more staffing cuts and less new services. Is that "extending care"?
This line is particularly telling. Obama is hoping that most will eventually conclude the plusses outweigh the minuses. Mr. President, shouldn't there be more than just hope. Or was this the part of Hope and Change you were talking about. Paul, if the President only has hope how can you state "It will".
The bill may close the donut hole in Medicare Part D but it taxes the pharmaceutical industry to pay for that provision which will ultimately be passed onto the consumer through higher premiums.
The next problem is for retirees and their prescription benefit. This article from Richard Lowry highlights the problem corporate America is facing with this new bill.
Companies began to receive a tax-free, deductible subsidy in 2003 to continue prescription-drug coverage for their retirees, a ploy to keep the firms from dumping retirees into the new government prescription-drug program. Outside experts and big employers counseled against ending the deductibility, pointing out that it would adversely affect the companies' financial statements immediately (accounting rules require that corporations note the long-term effect of the new liability right away).
These warnings got shelved under a category ensuring their brusque dismissal: Information Inconvenient to the Passage of Health-Care Reform.
Retirees will be forced to pay more for their current coverage which could amount to several hundred dollars per month as a result of the removal of the subsidy.
It is evidenced by the required SEC filings made by several large corporations including AT&T, Catepillar, and Deere & Co.
Last week, AT&T announced it will take an immediate $1 billion write-down thanks to a new tax in the health bill that will cause Caterpillar ($100 million) and Deere & Co. ($150 million), among other large employers, to do the same. The benefits consultancy Towers Watson estimates that the change may reduce corporate profits by as much as $14 billion over time.
The companies will reconsider providing prescription-drug coverage for their retirees at all. The Employee Benefit Research Institute calculates that companies could now save $1,000 per beneficiary by handing them off to the government. As many as 2 million more retirees could end up on the government program, according to James Klein of the American Benefits Council. These retirees might wonder about the truthfulness of Obama's constant promise that everyone can keep his current insurance.
The CBO estimated that the new treatment of the subsidy would generate roughly $5 billion in revenue. If companies stop taking the subsidy, that revenue disappears, while the costs of the drug program increase. A Towers Watson study stipulates that "employer plans generally provide much better protection than the standard Medicare benefit." And subsidizing those employer plans is cheaper to the government than providing the coverage itself.
Whenver Paul Kanjorski speaks the facts will always triumph over the rhetoric. Seniors will not only be paying significantly more for their helathcare; they will be forced into a government program.
It isn't enough to own the banks and the auto industry. Obamacare wants the healthcare industry too.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
League of American Voters Buys TV Ad Time Urging Kanjorski To Vote NO
The League of American Voters commenced an ad campaign aimed squarely at Paul Kanjorski. When I first saw the ad I thought O"Brien was finally jumping back in the game. However, when it finished the source was very clear.
From the PRN Newswire:
TV Ads Target Kanjorski to Vote 'No' on Obama-Pelosi Plan
LAV launches Heavy TV-Ad Blitz – 500 GRPs – in Wilkes Barre-Scranton Market
WASHINGTON, March 1 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- U.S. Congressman Paul Kanjorski is urged to vote "No" on the Obama-Pelosi government takeover of healthcare, in a major TV-ad campaign launched today by the League of American Voters (USALeague.com).
The ads will run in the Wilkes Barre-Scranton media market, a 500 GRP buy.
"Congressman Kanjorski, if you think you've got trouble now back home in your district, cast the deciding vote for Obamacare," said Bob Adams, executive director for the League of American Voters. "If you want to protect seniors from $500 billion in Medicare cuts, vote 'No.' If you want to stop job-killing tax increases on working families in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression, vote 'No'."
The script for the TV ad, called "Stop Them Now Kanjorski!" reads:
Announcer: Our Congressman Paul Kanjorski voted for Obama and Pelosi's healthcare takeover.
Graphic: Paul Kanjorski for Obama Healthcare Takeover
Announcer: Billions in Medicare cuts.
Graphic: "$500 Billion Cut to Medicare" - Wall Street Journal, 7/23/09
Announcer: Healthcare rationing.
Graphic: "…explicitly limiting patient access to treatment." – Wall Street Journal, 6/29/09
Announcer: Big taxes on good insurance plans.
Graphic: "Unions fear health tax would target middle class." – NPR, 1/12/10
Announcer: America said "slow down"
Graphic: "58% Oppose the Obama Plan." – Rasmussen Report, 1/22/10
Announcer: But now Pelosi and Obama are at it again, and they want Kanjorski as the deciding vote, in a last minute deal to take over your healthcare.
Graphic: Call Paul Kanjorski at (570) 825-2200
Announcer: Call Paul Kanjorski and tell him to vote "No" on the Obama-Pelosi Plan.
Graphic: Tell Paul Kanjorski to Vote NO! (570) 825-2200.
The League of American Voters (USALeague.com) is a Washington-based membership organization with nearly 50,000 members nationwide, and is organized as a 501(c)4 grassroots lobbying organization.
For more information, a copy of the ad, or to schedule an interview, call Bob Adams at (202) 302-9937.
SOURCE League of American Voters
From the PRN Newswire:
TV Ads Target Kanjorski to Vote 'No' on Obama-Pelosi Plan
LAV launches Heavy TV-Ad Blitz – 500 GRPs – in Wilkes Barre-Scranton Market
WASHINGTON, March 1 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- U.S. Congressman Paul Kanjorski is urged to vote "No" on the Obama-Pelosi government takeover of healthcare, in a major TV-ad campaign launched today by the League of American Voters (USALeague.com).
The ads will run in the Wilkes Barre-Scranton media market, a 500 GRP buy.
"Congressman Kanjorski, if you think you've got trouble now back home in your district, cast the deciding vote for Obamacare," said Bob Adams, executive director for the League of American Voters. "If you want to protect seniors from $500 billion in Medicare cuts, vote 'No.' If you want to stop job-killing tax increases on working families in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression, vote 'No'."
The script for the TV ad, called "Stop Them Now Kanjorski!" reads:
Announcer: Our Congressman Paul Kanjorski voted for Obama and Pelosi's healthcare takeover.
Graphic: Paul Kanjorski for Obama Healthcare Takeover
Announcer: Billions in Medicare cuts.
Graphic: "$500 Billion Cut to Medicare" - Wall Street Journal, 7/23/09
Announcer: Healthcare rationing.
Graphic: "…explicitly limiting patient access to treatment." – Wall Street Journal, 6/29/09
Announcer: Big taxes on good insurance plans.
Graphic: "Unions fear health tax would target middle class." – NPR, 1/12/10
Announcer: America said "slow down"
Graphic: "58% Oppose the Obama Plan." – Rasmussen Report, 1/22/10
Announcer: But now Pelosi and Obama are at it again, and they want Kanjorski as the deciding vote, in a last minute deal to take over your healthcare.
Graphic: Call Paul Kanjorski at (570) 825-2200
Announcer: Call Paul Kanjorski and tell him to vote "No" on the Obama-Pelosi Plan.
Graphic: Tell Paul Kanjorski to Vote NO! (570) 825-2200.
The League of American Voters (USALeague.com) is a Washington-based membership organization with nearly 50,000 members nationwide, and is organized as a 501(c)4 grassroots lobbying organization.
For more information, a copy of the ad, or to schedule an interview, call Bob Adams at (202) 302-9937.
SOURCE League of American Voters
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Phyllis Schlafly on Obamacare- Why It Is Wrong
Ten New Reasons Why Obamacare Can Still Be Killed
by Phyllis Schlafly January 1, 2010
New reasons emerge almost daily as to why Obamacare can and must be defeated.
1. The American people oppose Obamacare by almost 2 to 1 in the latest CNN poll. Other polls show lopsided opposition to passing either the Senate or House health-care bill.
Public opinion is against the bill because of its obscene costs in higher taxes, burdensome debt, anti-freedom mandates, rationing, and reduced care for seniors. The American people have awakened to the fact that Obamacare is transformational legislation that will drag us against popular will into European-style Socialism.
2. The Democrats' double-counting of Obamacare's financial benefits has been exposed as a colossal lie. Harry Reid told the Senate that his bill strengthens our future by both "cutting our towering national deficit by as much as $1.3 trillion over the next 20 years" AND "strengthening Medicare and extending its life by nearly a decade."
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) refuted that assertion. CBO said the claim that Obamacare would provide these benefits simultaneously "would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government's fiscal position."
3. Obamacare is unconstitutional because of its mandate that all individuals must carry "approved" health insurance, and all businesses must give health insurance to their employees whether or not the company can afford it. "Universal" coverage will be enforced by the Internal Revenue Service with power to punish those who don't have such a plan.
Constitutional lawyers point out that the Commerce Clause does not give Congress the authority to force Americans to buy health insurance as a condition of living in our country because personal health insurance is not "commerce." The CBO wrote that "a mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action"; the Supreme Court has never upheld any requirement that an individual must participate in economic activity.
4. Since the Senate bill imposes sharp limits on health-insurance companies' ability to raise fees or exclude coverage, it likely will force many of them out of business. Obamacare is unconstitutional because it violates the Bill of Rights protections against takings without just compensation and deprivation of property without due process of law.
5. Other Obamacare provisions blatantly legislate racial and other forms of discrimination. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights sent two letters to the President and congressional leaders warning about the obnoxious requirements for racist and sexist quotas.
The Senate bill requires that "priority" for federal grants be given to institutions offering "preferential" admissions to minorities (race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, and religion). Institutions training social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, behavioral pediatricians, psychiatric nurses, and counselors will be ineligible for federal grants unless they enroll "individuals and groups from different racial, ethnic, cultural, geographic, religious, linguistic, and class backgrounds, and different genders and sexual orientations."
6. Obama's claim that "everybody" will now be covered creates few winners but lots of losers. Universal health insurance will be achieved by forcing young people to pay the additional costs (insurance for the youngest third of the population would rise by 35 percent), and by restricting and rationing care for the elderly.
7. According to Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post, the "wild card is immigration." From 1999 to 2008, 60 percent of the increase in the uninsured occurred among Hispanics, and Obama's refusal to close our borders will make this problem more costly every year.
8. Obamacare gives Medicare bureaucrats the power to ration health care by forcing doctors to prescribe cheaper medical devices and drugs. In the recent case of Hays v. Sebelius, the court ruled that Medicare doesn't have the right to make this rule, but Obamacare takes jurisdiction away from the courts to hear any appeal from decisions of the new Medicare Commission.
The "stick" applied to primary-care doctors is imposing financial penalties if they refer too many patients to specialists. The "carrot" is financial rewards to doctors who give up small practices and consolidate into larger medical groups or become salaried employees of hospitals or other large institutions.
9. The Senate bill contains at least a dozen of what can be described as bribes. Senator Mary Landrieu received a $300 million increase in Medicaid funding for her state (known as the Second Louisiana Purchase), and Senator Ben Nelson received $100 million permanent exemption for Nebraska from the costs of Medicaid expansion.
10. The Senate bill even has a four-page section artfully written to enable ACORN to get federal health-care grants. This section describes grant recipients as "community and consumer-focused nonprofit groups" having "existing relationships ... with uninsured and underinsured consumers."
by Phyllis Schlafly January 1, 2010
New reasons emerge almost daily as to why Obamacare can and must be defeated.
1. The American people oppose Obamacare by almost 2 to 1 in the latest CNN poll. Other polls show lopsided opposition to passing either the Senate or House health-care bill.
Public opinion is against the bill because of its obscene costs in higher taxes, burdensome debt, anti-freedom mandates, rationing, and reduced care for seniors. The American people have awakened to the fact that Obamacare is transformational legislation that will drag us against popular will into European-style Socialism.
2. The Democrats' double-counting of Obamacare's financial benefits has been exposed as a colossal lie. Harry Reid told the Senate that his bill strengthens our future by both "cutting our towering national deficit by as much as $1.3 trillion over the next 20 years" AND "strengthening Medicare and extending its life by nearly a decade."
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) refuted that assertion. CBO said the claim that Obamacare would provide these benefits simultaneously "would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government's fiscal position."
3. Obamacare is unconstitutional because of its mandate that all individuals must carry "approved" health insurance, and all businesses must give health insurance to their employees whether or not the company can afford it. "Universal" coverage will be enforced by the Internal Revenue Service with power to punish those who don't have such a plan.
Constitutional lawyers point out that the Commerce Clause does not give Congress the authority to force Americans to buy health insurance as a condition of living in our country because personal health insurance is not "commerce." The CBO wrote that "a mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action"; the Supreme Court has never upheld any requirement that an individual must participate in economic activity.
4. Since the Senate bill imposes sharp limits on health-insurance companies' ability to raise fees or exclude coverage, it likely will force many of them out of business. Obamacare is unconstitutional because it violates the Bill of Rights protections against takings without just compensation and deprivation of property without due process of law.
5. Other Obamacare provisions blatantly legislate racial and other forms of discrimination. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights sent two letters to the President and congressional leaders warning about the obnoxious requirements for racist and sexist quotas.
The Senate bill requires that "priority" for federal grants be given to institutions offering "preferential" admissions to minorities (race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, and religion). Institutions training social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, behavioral pediatricians, psychiatric nurses, and counselors will be ineligible for federal grants unless they enroll "individuals and groups from different racial, ethnic, cultural, geographic, religious, linguistic, and class backgrounds, and different genders and sexual orientations."
6. Obama's claim that "everybody" will now be covered creates few winners but lots of losers. Universal health insurance will be achieved by forcing young people to pay the additional costs (insurance for the youngest third of the population would rise by 35 percent), and by restricting and rationing care for the elderly.
7. According to Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post, the "wild card is immigration." From 1999 to 2008, 60 percent of the increase in the uninsured occurred among Hispanics, and Obama's refusal to close our borders will make this problem more costly every year.
8. Obamacare gives Medicare bureaucrats the power to ration health care by forcing doctors to prescribe cheaper medical devices and drugs. In the recent case of Hays v. Sebelius, the court ruled that Medicare doesn't have the right to make this rule, but Obamacare takes jurisdiction away from the courts to hear any appeal from decisions of the new Medicare Commission.
The "stick" applied to primary-care doctors is imposing financial penalties if they refer too many patients to specialists. The "carrot" is financial rewards to doctors who give up small practices and consolidate into larger medical groups or become salaried employees of hospitals or other large institutions.
9. The Senate bill contains at least a dozen of what can be described as bribes. Senator Mary Landrieu received a $300 million increase in Medicaid funding for her state (known as the Second Louisiana Purchase), and Senator Ben Nelson received $100 million permanent exemption for Nebraska from the costs of Medicaid expansion.
10. The Senate bill even has a four-page section artfully written to enable ACORN to get federal health-care grants. This section describes grant recipients as "community and consumer-focused nonprofit groups" having "existing relationships ... with uninsured and underinsured consumers."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)