11-01-09: Wall Street Journal Opinion Piece: The Worst Bill Ever

Text, with emphasis added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The insurance takeover. A new "health choices commissioner" will decide what counts as "essential benefits," which all insurers will have to offer as first-dollar coverage. Private insurers will also be told how much they are allowed to charge even as they will have to offer coverage at virtually the same price to anyone who applies, regardless of health status or medical history.

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

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

All of this is intentional, even if it isn't explicitly acknowledged. The overriding liberal ambition is to finish the work began decades ago as the Great Society of converting health care into a government responsibility. Mr. Obama's own Medicare actuaries estimate that the federal share of U.S. health dollars will quickly climb beyond 60% from 46% today. One reason Mrs. Pelosi has fought so ferociously against her own Blue Dog colleagues to include at least a scaled-back "public option" entitlement program is so that the architecture is in place for future Congresses to expand this share even further.

As Congress's balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can't regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine.

Mr. Obama rode into office on a wave of "change," but we doubt most voters realized that the change Democrats had in mind was making health care even more expensive and rigid than the status quo. Critics will say we are exaggerating, but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi's handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.

Ask your Representative and Senator how many actual citizens are contacting them in support of these health care related bills?

Every Congressional website requires you to list your name, address, contact information, and ZIP+4 to see if you are in their district or state before you can send them an email. Most will not reply to those outside the district or state.

Instead of telling them how you feel about it, ask your elected federal official how many actual citizens, as identified by the website info or other credible means (a phone call usually is not) are supporting these bills? How many are opposing them? If a majority are supporting or opposing them, can they produce evidence to this effect?

If they are not voting the will of a majority of their constituents, then why are they in office?

ASK YOUR ELECTED OFFICIAL HOW MANY OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS SUPPORT THIS BILL! MAKE THEM JUSTIFY THEIR VOTE SO THEY CAN BE ACCOUNTABLE.

Call your local newspaper and TV station. Challenge them to ask this question of our elected officials.

So you really like Canadian Health Care? How about this health insurance coverage?
From Yahoo News:

Canadian woman loses benefits over Facebook photo

Sun Nov 22, 1:20 pm ET

BROMONT, Quebec – A Canadian woman on long-term sick leave for depression says she lost her benefits because her insurance agent found photos of her on Facebook in which she appeared to be having fun.

Nathalie Blanchard has been on leave from her job at IBM in Bromont, Quebec, for the last year.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corp. reported Saturday she was diagnosed with major depression and was receiving monthly sick-leave benefits from insurance giant Manulife.

But the payments dried up this fall and when Blanchard called Manulife, she says she was told she was available to work because of Facebook.

She said her insurance agent described several pictures Blanchard posted on Facebook, including ones showing her having a good time at a Chippendales bar show, at her birthday party and on a sun holiday.

Blanchard said Manulife told her it's evidence she is no longer depressed. She's fighting to get her benefits reinstated and says her lawyer is exploring what the next step should be.

Blanchard told the CBC that on her doctor's advice, she tried to have fun, including nights out at her local bar with friends and short getaways to sun destinations, as a way to forget her problems.

Manulife wouldn't comment on Blanchard's case, but did say they would not deny or terminate a claim solely based on information published on Web sites such as Facebook.

Taylor Tea Party comment:

Something tells us there is a not so small army of similar slackers already in place here just salivating over the possibility of the government paying them not to work, and a similar legion of lawyers lining up to litigate. Wait a minute... they already do! See the $98 Billion fraud article below. The healthcare billl will only pour gas on this fire. In our opinion, she should be in need of legal services due to being charged with fraud, and she should be required to pay back all wages paid to her by the employer, as well as their legal fees. How's that for health insurance reform and lowering the cost of health insurance?

November 2009: The "new" health care bill is HR 3962 and is over 1,900 pages!

Here is a link to the text of the bill on Open Congress (it will take a while to load).

As of 11-3-09, on Open Congress, an apolitical/non-partisan informational website:

17%

Users Support Bill

95 in favor / 458 opposed

ASK YOUR ELECTED OFFICIAL HOW MANY OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS SUPPORT THIS BILL! MAKE THEM JUSTIFY THEIR VOTE SO THEY CAN BE ACCOUNTABLE.

Call your local newspaper and TV station. Challenge them to ask this question of our elected officials.

Here are two YouTube videos from an Orlando, FL radio station:

You can read an updated and revised overview of HR 3200 compiled by Liberty Counsel.

Or, go to the full text of HR 3200 and read directly from the government website what this bill does!

Here is some interesting reading titled The Prognosis for National Health Insurance: A Florida Perspective from the James Madison Institute.

Health Care Quiz for Your Representatives:

1. Will we be forced to use doctors that are assigned to us by the government? Can the Congressman or Senator guarantee they will not vote for anything that will infringe on our ability to choose our own doctors?

2. Will we wind up with rationing of medical services as more and more people have access to government run health care? Can they guarantee they will not vote for anything that will result in rationing of medical services?

3. Will there be waiting lists for standard procedures and/or diagnosis necessary to be treated? Can they guarantee they will not vote for anything that will result in waiting lists for standard procedures and/or diagnosis?

4. If they insist on voting for socialized health care, will they immediately change their health insurance and their spouse and children's health insurance to the government option? If not, since the government run is supposed to be better than the current health care options, why won't they change it? Do they not have

confidence in the plan's results?

5. Will our medical decisions be made by government employed bureaucrats or by doctors? Will the final decision rest between the doctor and the patient or will the final decision for treatment lie outside of the doctorpatient relationship?

6. Will individuals be able to pay for treatment out of their own pocket or will they be required to have insurance, even if they do not want it?

7. Will they sign a pledge not to vote on any nationalized health care bill until they have it in hand - including all amendments - for at least 72 hours? 48 hours? 24 hours?

8. During the debate on the so-called stimulus package, the President’s estimates on future unemployment and economic recovery proved to be wildly off-base. Why should Americans now believe that they will not be forced out of the private coverage they enjoy, as basic economics would dictate?

9. Despite the President’s assertions that health care reform will save money, the reality is that plans proposed by Democrats would cost taxpayers between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. How does this save money and how will we pay for this?

10. If, as the President claims, a governmentrun option is essential to maintaining honest competition in the health insurance market, why is it not also true that we need a government-run competitor in the fast food

industry, neighborhood babysitting, or Major League Baseball?

11. Proponents of a government-run option claim that it will compete on a level playing field with private insurance providers. In that case, will the government-run plan operate under a for-profit model and be forced to pay all applicable state, federal, and local taxes?

12. How will we meet the growing need for physicians and medical professionals if the government-run plan pays lower than market rates to physicians while forcing them to participate or lose a majority of their patients and their livelihood?

13. If the government mandates that all Americans purchase health insurance, it must also define what qualifies as health insurance. Can you provide us your definition (with details

please) and explain how this definition will not limit innovation and choice in health care?

14. According to the House Democrats’ plan, a family of four with an income of $88,200, four times the federal poverty level, would qualify for health insurance subsidies. In your view, is this a subsidy for low-income Americans or an effort to use taxpayers to put more health care under the purview of the federal government?

15. The new Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research is charged with determining what treatments should be offered to patients. Do you believe that these personal medical decisions should be made by patients in consultation with their doctors, or by unaccountable bureaucrats?

16. Why are there no actively practicing physicians included in the membership of the Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research?

17. If the final reform proposal is controversial enough that it will not receive the necessary 60 votes in the Senate, Democrats have left open the possibility of using a procedural move to pass it with only 51 votes. Do you believe massive changes to such a vital area of American life should be pushed through in this manner with only 51 votes?

A recent letter to the editor here in Taylor County:

Dear Editor,

In 2010 the residents of Arizona will be voting on a State Constitutional Amendment that will allow them to effectively opt out of any proposed national health care plan.

Under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution this is a political tradition of nullification of any thing coming out of Washington. The Tenth Amendment Center.com gives permission to use whole or part of their information.

A similar proposal was introduced into the Florida senate in July 2009. State Representative Scott Plakon filed a proposed State Constitutional Amendment (HJR37) as a means to prevent Floridians from being affected by any Federal Health Care Legislation; how ever it seems to be stalled. If this passes the legislature it could be on the ballot for 2010.

Write or call your representative in Tallahassee and ask them to please move HJR37 through the house and senate so we may have a say in our future.

When a state “nullifies” a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative within that state. Essentially it is not a law as far at the state is concerned.

Georgia is going to give its residents the right to choose whether they want to enroll in any health insurance plan and prohibiting governments from punishing those who decide not to participate.

Shouldn’t we Floridian’s have the same rights?

Here is HJR 37 from the Florida Legislature's website:

JOINT RESOLUTION by Plakon and Workman and Ray (CO-SPONSORS) Adams; Adkins; Ambler; Carroll; Coley; Dorworth; Drake; Eisnaugle; Flores; Ford; Hays; Holder; Hooper; Horner; Hudson; Kelly; Mayfield; Nehr; O'Toole; Poppell; Precourt; Proctor; Renuart; Snyder; Stargel; Tobia; Van Zant; Wood

Health Care Services: Proposes creation of s. 28, Art. X of State Constitution to prohibit laws or rules from compelling any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system; permit person or employer to purchase lawful health care services directly from health care provider; permit health care provider to accept direct payment from person or employer for lawful health care services; exempt persons, employers, & health care providers from penalties & fines for paying or accepting direct payment for lawful health care services; permit purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems; & specifies what amendment does not affect or prohibit.

Effective Date: Not Specified

This is funny, but it gets the point across from a young person's point of view:

Taylor County Tea Party

Washington is out of control

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

Canadian woman loses benefits over Facebook photo

17%

Users Support Bill