Heritage Morning Bell - Healthcare

Obamacare’s Constitutional Problems Proliferating

After the Democrats cleared the second of three 60 vote hurdles last night, Republicans ceded enough debate time back to the majority so that passage of Obamacare through the Senate will take place n Christmas Eve at 8 AM. Conservatives have every right to be disappointed that Senate Republicans did not force the maximum amount of debate possible. But they can take heart in a key point of order that will be voted on later today. Sponsored by Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and John Ensign (R-NV), that vote will lay the groundwork for the possible legal dismantling of Obama’s health program.

As we’ve detailed before, the very core of the Senate health plan includes an unprecedented expansion of the power of the federal government over the lives of every American. For the first time in history, every American would be forced to buy federally regulated and approved health insurance or face a $750 fine.

As the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) wrote in 1994: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.” The individual mandate and other questionable measures in the bill raise serious questions as to whether Obamacare could survive a Constitutional test:

Enumerated Powers:
Article I allocates to Congress “[a]ll legislative powers herein granted,” which means that some legislative powers were intended to remain beyond Congress’s reach. The Supreme Court recognized and affirmed this fundamental principle from the earliest days of the republic, as Chief Justice Marshall famously observed: “The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power to mandate that an individual enter into a contract with a private party or purchase a good or service. Democrats have pointed to both the general welfare taxing power and the commerce clause as possible justifications for the mandate, but as a recent Heritage Legal Memorandum details, neither justification withstands scrutiny.

5th Amendment:
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads in part: “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Sen. Ensign will argue today: “The Democrats’ health reform bill would require an American citizen to devote a portion of income – his or her private property – to health insurance coverage. … But, Mr. President, if a Nevadan does not want to spend his or her hard-earned income on health insurance coverage and would prefer to spend it on something else, such as rent or a car payment, this new requirement could be a “taking” of private property under the Fifth Amendment.”

Racial Discrimination:
On December 10th, the United States Commission on Civil Rights sent a letter to the Senate regarding racially discriminatory provisions in Obama’s health plan. The letter reads: “No matter how well-intentioned, utilizing racial preferences with hope of alleviating health care disparities is inadvisable both as a matter of policy and as a matter of law. … Ensuring that all Americans, regardless of race, have access to quality health care requires both creativity and hard-nosed attention to data. It also requires staying within the requirements of the Constitution. The current race-based provisions of the Senate Health Care bill display none of these qualities.”

Unequal State Treatment:
Speaking to Fox News, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) described Sen. Ben Nelson’s (D-NE) deal to support Obamacare in exchange for a bailout Nebraska’s Medicaid costs as “disappointing, sleazy, unconstitutional.” Graham is not the only one examining Cornhusker Kickback. The Attorneys General of Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas and Washington state are jointly investigating the deal to see if special treatment for only one state in the nation at the expense of the other 49 violates the Constitution.

The leftist majority in the Senate is likely to vote down the DeMint/Ensign constitutional point of order, but the very objection itself will help build a record that courts will look at when determining whether or not Obamacare is unconstitutional. The Senate is not the final arbiter of whether or not the laws it passes are consistent with the United States Constitution. That question was settled over 200 years ago in Marbury v. Madison.

Although it is always difficult for the Supreme Court to thwart what is perceived to be the popular will, polling consistently shows that this legislation faces strong popular opposition. If that remains true after enactment, the majority of the Justices who are inclined to preserve the enumerated powers scheme and adhere to the original meaning of the text will have little inclination or incentive to stretch the Constitution to reach so decidedly unpopular and far-reaching a law as this one.

Dingy Harry Has His 60 Pieces of Silver

What to Do Now??

Contact Senator Webb and ask him to vote NO on cloture. This vote will take place 1 AM Monday morning. So call Saturday or Sunday.

Higher Taxes for Virginia: Nebraska's medicaid exemption means that other states, like Virginia, will have to pick up the tab for Nebraska. Our state budget cannot afford expanisions like this.

Read The Bill! This is a 2200+ page bill. In addition, there is a 400-page amendment. No one has seen either document yet.. Senator Webb promised that he wouldn't vote for a bill unless there would be a 72-hour public review period for legislation. The scheduled Monday 1 AM vote for cloture will not allow this! Hold him to his promise.

Plausible Deniability: Some Senators may play the "plausible deniability game" -- vote "yes" for cloture and then vote "no" for the bill so that when it's time to run for re-election they can claim that they voted "no" for the bill. Truth be known, if he help pushs the bill forward by voting "yes" for cloture, he's helping to get the bill passed. Don't let Senator Webb get away with this! Carrying the ball down the field helps the rest of the team get the ball over the goal line.

Foot-In-The-Door: Many Progressive Senators are disappointed in the bill --- they want federal funding for abortion, they want the public open and they want the medicaid buy-in. A Senator today said that these Progressives need to realize that while this bill doesn't build a "mansion" it is building a "starter house." READ: If they get this passed, it's a foot-in-the-door. They can address their wish list afterwards.

How to Contact Senator Webb
Calling the Senator: They are asking folks to visit Tell Webb No! (www.tellwebbno.com). You can find contact information for Senator Webb on the website or you can email him right from the website. You can also provide feedback about how your call goes.

Problems Getting Through? If you have any problems getting through to Senator Webb visit the Tell Webb No! (www.tellwebbno.com) website to report the issue. They will make sure that Senator Webb and the media know.

What If The Vote for Cloture Passes?
Should the Vote for Cloture (which requires 60 votes) they will move on to vote on the bill for passage. This will only require a simple majority (how many votes are required is determined by how many people actually vote; some may not show up to vote).

Should it pass, they will then need to go into conference with the House of Representatives. Many members of the House only voted for the bill after the abortion amendment was added. Several other changes in the Senate version of the bill may cause problems in the House.This may be another opportunity to stop this legislation.Remember -- please call Senator Webb prior to the Monday 1 AM Vote for Cloture.

Email Senator Webb at http://webb.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Call Senator Webb at any of the following numbers:
Washington, D.C.: 202-224-4024 or 1-866-507-1570
Danville: 434-792-0976
Hampton Roads: 757-518-1674
Northern Virginia: 703-807-0581
Norton: 276-679-4925
Richmond: 804-771-2221
Roanoke: 540-772-4236

Heritage Morning Bell - Cap and Tax

Cap And Trade’s Mandates And Subsidies Are Wrong
Following major defeats at the ballot box on Tuesday, the left’s legislative agenda suffered another huge setback yesterday when once wavering Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Susan Collins (R-ME) all signed a letter supporting Sen. George Voinovich’s (R-OH) demand that the Environmental Protection Agency provide a thorough analysis of how the Kerry-Boxer cap and trade legislation will impact the U.S. economy. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) had been pressing for swift passage of her cap and tax legislation, but conservatives on the Environment and Public Works Committee thwarted her efforts by boycotting a vote on the legislation Tuesday.

An EPA analysis on the economic costs of cap and trade is no small issue. If Tuesday’s elections proved anything, it is that jobs and economic growth are the top concern on Americans’ minds. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis has found that cap and tax legislation would cost the average family-of-four almost $3,000 per year, cause 2.5 million net job losses by 2035, and a produce a cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) loss of $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035. The EPA has issued preliminary reports reaching different conclusions; including an October 23 report on Kerry-Boxer that found it would only cost the average American family $80 to $111 dollars per year.

There are many fundamental problems with that EPA report, none more glaring than their fanciful assumption that nuclear power generation will nearly double in the next 25 years. This is the equivalent of about 100 additional nuclear power plants. The reality is that in the past 30 years, not one new nuclear power plant has been licensed. More importantly, the Kerry-Boxer approach to reviving the nuclear energy relies on the same failed policies that have crippled the U.S. nuclear energy for the past 30 years. Heritage fellows Jack Spencer and Nick Loris explain:

Washington has a role to play in reducing financial barriers, but not by funding projects with taxpayer dollars. The regulatory costs and uncertainty posed by the federal bureaucracy represent significant risk to the success of the nuclear industry, just as regulatory uncertainty significantly affected the timing and budget of past nuclear plant construction. Indeed, this risk and uncertainty results in the higher prices that are most often used to justify government subsidies for nuclear projects. Efforts to reduce that risk by reforming the most obvious areas, such as the regulatory process and waste management, are nowhere to be found in the bill.

Instead, the bill attempts to reduce the financial risk caused by regulatory delays and technological development by expanding the federal government’s responsibility — and authority — on the technical side. It promotes government intervention into areas that are either unnecessary or that should reside solely in the private sector. For example, the Boxer-Kerry bill creates a research and development program to assess plant aging, improve plant performance, engineer safer fuels, and lower overall costs. These are all areas currently being addressed by the private sector and already supported by public institutions and funds.

Instead of handing out more government subsidies to compensate for increased government regulation, Congress should be heading in the exact opposite direction. What the nuclear industry really needs is an end to market distorting loan guarantees, a streamlined permit process for new plants and reactor designs, market reforms for nuclear waste management, and the ability to recycle spent fuel. America can create thousands of new jobs through an expansion of the energy sector. But just as with oil, coal, and natural gas, the less government intervention in the market, the better.

Heritage Foundation and Prince Harry's Healthcare

MyHeritage.org
If you don't get MyHeritage, you are under-informed, my friend.

October 28, 2009 By Amanda Reinecker

'Gigantic, unintelligible, unaffordable, over-regulatory, federal legislation'

After 13 days of secret, closed-door negotiations on health care legislation, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced Monday that he had reached an agreement with Senators Chris Dodd (D-MT) and Max Baucus (D-CT), and three top administration officials. Unfortunately, Senator Reid did not tell the American people much else.

Even many lawmakers remain in the dark regarding the outcome of this "secret deal that Senator Reid wants to get passed and signed into law 'this year,'" writes
Heritage Senate Relations expert Brian Darling.

Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, summed it up: "It will be a thousand-page, trillion-dollar bill that raises premiums, raises taxes and slashes Medicare for our seniors to create new government spending programs. That's not reform."

Even as some of the final details of the bill do go public, it is likely that lawmakers won't know in advance entirely what it is they are voting on. This is because the legislation the Senate Finance Committee "agreed" to -- all 1,502 pages of it -- is the most massive piece of legislation ever introduced by Congress.

But length isn't the only record the "America's Healthy Future Act of 2009" claims, as Heritage health policy analyst Ed Haislmaier notes. "For the first time in fifteen years, [Congress] has set a new all-time division record for gigantic, unintelligible, unaffordable, over-regulatory, federal legislation."

What we do know about Reid's 'secret deal'

Although Senator Reid did not go into great detail about the health care "reform" legislation, he did mention that bill includes a government-run health insurance "option" that would "compete" against private health plans.

In an attempt to gain much-needed support from skeptical moderates in both parties, liberals have added a new twist to the "public option": a provision allowing states to opt out of the program. This would require states to pass legislation by 2014 rejecting participation in the federal government run plan.

But this new wrinkle is really more of the same, warns Heritage health policy analyst Nina Owcharenko. "This latest Senate ploy creates the illusion of an 'option' rather than making any fundamental changes to the controversial proposal."

Owcharenko explains why this "opt-out" model is just another government-run plan that is guaranteed to fail:

States can only opt-out of the government-run plan, not the entire bill. But the rest of the bill contains hundreds of provisions, such as the expansion of Medicaid, which will place major financial burdens on the states.

It is still a government-run plan because the government will require non-participating states to meet federal conditions. These government-determined conditions could include the creation of state-level public options that mirror the federal plan.

States will likely select the public "option" because of the bureaucracy and enormous administrative complexity required for a state opt-out. Federal conditions will limit states' ability to create alternatives.

State innovation will suffer under the massive health care proposal's employer and individual mandates, and government micromanagement of an industry that represents one-sixth of our economy.

So even though the states would be able to "opt out" of the government-run health insurance program, the federal government will make it very difficult to do so. And for the few states that do succeed in withdrawing, the government will still dominate their health care systems.

A true state "opt-out" provision would allow states to opt out of the bill in its entirety, argues Owcharenko. "Any other opt-out is just another shell game that is intended to appear as a concession but in reality provides for greater federal control and blocks much needed structural changes."

Sen Jim DeMint Supports Doug Hoffman

GOP Sen. Jim DeMint supports Doug Hoffman
By Michelle Malkin • October 27, 2009 03:01 PM
RedState has the scoop.

It’s way past time for the spoiler radical leftist Republican Dede Scozzafava to get out of the race.
Dana Loesch is keeping tabs on all the latest NY-23 developments at Dump Dede.

Censorship by HHS

HHS muzzles private corporation

Here's the situation: Earlier this month, officials with the Louisville, Ky.-based Humana Corp. sent a one-page letter to all of its policyholders who participate in the Medicare Advantage program. The letter was entirely factual and pointed out, among other things, that because of cuts proposed under Obamacare, "millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable."

The Humana letter angered Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who is the principal author of the Senate version of Obamacare, which indeed includes hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of "savings" that are supposed to be achieved by eliminating waste and fraud in the Medicare Advantage program. When Washington politicians talk about saving money by cutting waste and fraud, hang on to your wallets. It's their way of saying higher taxes are coming.

To make sure Americans don't see through this smoke-and-mirror act, and to stay in the good graces of Baucus, the bureaucrats at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which manages Medicare, ordered Humana and all other private companies participating in the Medicare Advantage program to "to end immediately all such mailings to beneficiaries and to remove any related materials directed to Medicare enrollees from your website."

They also added this blunt warning: "Please be advised that we take this matter very seriously and, based upon the findings of our investigation, will pursue compliance and enforcement actions.
..."

I Don't Know What To Call This

This is the same Dodd who got a sweetheart mortgage deal. I guess he's just trying to keep up with public opinion now.

Hey Dudd, its called a contractual agreement, you dipstick. It means you're supposed to keep your word. Something you're not very adept at.

Folks, a word of advice; ignore the financial crap being thrown around. It's a diversion. A Red Herring. Something to throw us off the trail, so we won't discover the real mission of these effing socialists.

From NewsMax:

Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd on Monday criticized the bonuses given to executives of American International Group Inc. and suggested that the government could tax the recipients to recoup some or all of the payouts. But it was Dodd who inserted language in the $787 billion stimulus bill that exempts the bonuses from taxation.
AIG lost $61.7 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008, the biggest quarterly loss in corporate history, and has received $173 billion in federal aid. But the company is paying $450 million in bonuses to employees of its financial products unit.
Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, thundered on Monday: “This is another outrageous example of executives — including those whose decisions were responsible for the problems that caused AIG’s collapse — enriching themselves at the expense of taxpayers.”
While the Senate was constructing the stimulus package last month, however, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill, which provides an "exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009” — which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax, Fox News observed.