Scott Brown: The health care fight is not over

Scott Brown has an Op-Ed in today's Boston Globe that's too good to do anything but quote in it's entirety:

By electing me to the US Senate, the people of Massachusetts sent a clear message: Washington needs to get its priorities straight. Voters believed I would be the best candidate to fight for jobs and a stronger economy, keep our country safe, and serve as the 41st vote against the health care reform legislation debated in the Senate.

After my election, Washington politicians began an aggressive push to bend the rules and force their unpopular health care bill on an unwilling nation. They went into secret negotiations to make up their own rules, and eventually found a way to circumvent the will of the people by using the reconciliation process to ram through their health care bill. For the last year, the American people have been shaking their heads at the closed-door meetings, sweetheart deals, and special carve-outs. It has been a very ugly process, and caused many Americans to lose faith in their elected officials in Washington.

This bill constitutes a massive increase in spending that our country can’t afford and will result in a huge expansion in the size and reach of the federal government. When this legislation is fully implemented, the real cost to taxpayers is $2.6 trillion over years. Instead of reforming the health care system and bending the cost curve down, we are doing the exact opposite.

Everywhere I go, people ask me what can be done about this now — after the president has signed it into law, and Nancy Pelosi and others are taking their victory laps.

For starters, we can work in a bipartisan manner to repeal the worst parts of this bill. Americans have been clear that they do not like its $2.6 trillion cost, the higher taxes on families and businesses, the runaway spending, the state mandates, the sweetheart deals, and overcharging students to pay for health care.

We should replace the worst parts of this legislation with solutions that would actually lower costs and improve the quality of care — such as allowing individuals to purchase insurance across state lines, measures that will prevent waste, fraud and abuse, support for increased prevention and wellness programs, and reforms to limit costly litigation and defensive medicine.

I am working on legislation that would allow states to opt out of this federal health care bill because states need flexibility, not a federal government takeover of health care. Instead, individual states should have the flexibility to solve the health care problems in a way that is best for their specific state, similar to the approach we took in Massachusetts that has resulted in a state-specific plan that covers 98 percent of our citizens without raising taxes.

I am also working to repeal the medical device tax. Massachusetts has more than 200 medical device manufacturers who employ tens of thousands of workers. The medical device tax will not only cost our state good-paying jobs when we can least afford it, but it will be passed along to consumers, who will pay more for necessary medical equipment.

At a time when unemployment in the Commonwealth is hovering at nearly 10 percent, the last thing we should be doing is slapping businesses and workers with higher taxes. I am leading a charge to take the billions of dollars sitting unused in the stimulus slush funds of federal bureaucracies and give immediate tax relief — as much as $100 a month — to every American worker so that they can support their families now and inject money into the economy rather than let it stagnate in Washington.

This disastrous detour of a health care bill has distracted the attention and energy of Congress for the past year. Now, it is time to listen to the people and focus on their top priority: jobs. It would be a mistake for the administration to try to ram through other items on the liberal agenda when so many Americas are struggling. Americans want their government to fully focus its attention on the economy and getting our citizens back to work.

Washington is broken. All across the country, people believe that their elected officials are working for themselves and not on behalf of their constituents. Only when we start heeding the will of the American people can we begin to restore faith in government, and it all starts with commonsense, practical solutions that will put Americans back to work and get our economy back on track.

Pants on Fire

National Review Online graciously calls it the Complete List of Obama Statement Expiration Dates. I'd prefer to invoke a little Rep. Joe Wilson and put it more simply as "President Obama, You Lie!":

HEALTH CARE MANDATES

STATEMENT: “We've got a philosophical difference, which we've debated repeatedly, and that is that Senator Clinton believes the only way to achieve universal health care is to force everybody to purchase it. And my belief is, the reason that people don't have it is not because they don't want it but because they can't afford it.” Barack Obama, speaking at a Democratic presidential debate, February 21, 2008.

EXPIRATION DATE: On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the individual mandate into law.


HEALTH CARE NEGOTIATIONS ON C-SPAN

STATEMENT: “These negotiations will be on C-SPAN, and so the public will be part of the conversation and will see the decisions that are being made.” January 20, 2008, and seven other times.

EXPIRATION DATE: Throughout the summer, fall, and winter of 2009 and 2010; when John McCain asked about it during the health care summit February 26, Obama dismissed the issue by declaring, “the campaign is over, John.”


RAISING TAXES

STATEMENT: “No family making less than $250,000 will see any form of tax increase.” (multiple times on the campaign trail)

EXPIRATION DATE: Broken multiple times, including the raised taxes on tobacco, a new tax on indoor tanning salons, but most prominently on February 11, 2010: “President Barack Obama said he is “agnostic” about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.”


RECESS APPOINTMENTS

STATEMENT: Then-Senator Obama declared that a recess appointment is “damaged goods” and has “less credibility” than a normal appointment. August 25, 2005.

EXPIRATION DATE: March 27, 2010: “If, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis.”


BORDER SECURITY

STATEMENT: “We need tougher border security, and a renewed focus on busting up gangs and traffickers crossing our border. . . . That begins at home, with comprehensive immigration reform. That means securing our border and passing tough employer enforcement laws.” then-candidate Obama, discussing the need for border security, speaking in Miami on May 23, 2008:

EXPIRATION DATE: March 17, 2010: The Obama administration halted new work on a "virtual fence" on the U.S.-Mexican border, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced Tuesday, diverting $50 million in planned economic stimulus funds for the project to other purposes.


GUANTANAMO BAY

STATEMENT: Executive Order stating, "The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order." January 22, 2009.

EXPIRATION DATE: November 19, 2009: "Guantánamo, we had a specific deadline that was missed."


MILITARY TRIBUNALS

STATEMENT: “Somebody like Khalid Sheik Mohammad is gonna get basically, a full military trial with all the bells and whistles.” September 27, 2006

EXPIRATION DATE: Ongoing. “President Obama is planning to insert himself into the debate about where to try the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, three administration officials said Thursday, signaling a recognition that the administration had mishandled the process and triggered a political backlash. Obama initially had asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to choose the site of the trial in an effort to maintain an independent Justice Department. But the White House has been taken aback by the intense criticism from political opponents and local officials of Holder's decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian courtroom in New York.”


RECOVERY.GOV

STATEMENT: “We will launch a sweeping effort to root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government, and every American will be able to see how and where we spend taxpayer dollars by going to a new website called recovery.gov.” – President Obama, January 28, 2009

EXPIRATION DATE: “More than two months after some of the funds were released, [Recovery.gov] offers little detail on where the money is going… The government [spent] $84 million on a website that doesn't have a search function, when its purpose is to ‘root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government.’” April 2, 2009


Eighteen from his first 100 days:

1. "As President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide."
2. "I will make sure that we renegotiate [NAFTA]."
3. Opposed a Colombian Free Trade Agreement because advocates ignore that "labor leaders have been targeted for assassination on a fairly consistent basis."
4. "Now, what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut."
5. "If we see money being misspent, we're going to put a stop to it, and we will call it out and we will publicize it."
6. "Yesterday, Jim, the head of Caterpillar, said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off."
7. "I want to go line by line through every item in the Federal budget and eliminate programs that don't work, and make sure that those that do work work better and cheaper."
8. "[My plan] will not help speculators who took risky bets on a rising market and bought homes not to live in but to sell."
9. "Instead of allowing lobbyists to slip big corporate tax breaks into bills during the dead of night, we will make sure every single tax break and earmark is available to every American online."
10."We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress's seniority, rather than the merit of the project."
11. "If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime."
12. "Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe the United States has to be frank with the Chinese about such failings and will press them to respect human rights."
13. "We must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights."
14. "Lobbyists won’t work in my White House!"
15. "The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result."
16. "I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills."
17. "Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days." Obama is 1-for-11 on this promise so far.
18. A special one on the 100th day, "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'd do."

NRO goes on to also list "promises that expired during the campaign," but I'll leave off here.


Granted, if you've been reading this blog, none of this should come as a surprise. Reaching back to the height of the 2008 campaign:

• September 16, 2008: And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying


• October 22, 2008: For the record, Obama has no problem breaking his pledges


• October 22, 2008: For the record, Obama regularly invents false claims

Dress Rehearsal

As Billy Beck has said many times (including last summer over the Healthcare Townhall Outrage):

All politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war...

• Democrats Fear For Families


• Cantor Says Campaign Office Was Shot At, Accuses Dems of Exploiting Threats


• Steny Hoyer: Members Are at Risk


• Vandalism at 2 Western NY Democratic Offices


• Brick Incident (in Western NY) Linked To Alabama Blogger


• Vandals Hit at Least Five Dem Offices Nationwide, Threaten To ‘Assassinate’ Children Of Pro-Reform Lawmakers


• Coffin Placed On Carnahan's Lawn

Let me be clear: I believe violence and destruction of private property is reprehensible. But, is it any surprise that when you screw with people's liberty, people get upset?

Particularly if the Democrats keep up this "cram it down their throat" style of governance, to pass unpopular "lurch towards socialism" bills, I expect this type of behavior to accelerate. And not because some pundit is stirring up their passions (as liberals will undeniably charge). No, it's because: People. Want. To. Be. Free.

Save Us, States!

It is a shame the states have to be the ones to ensure the Constitution is followed, but may they succeed in doing so!

Virginia will file suit against the federal government charging that the health-care reform legislation is unconstitutional, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s office confirmed last night.

Cuccinelli is expected to argue that the bill, with its mandate that requires nearly every American to be insured by 2014, violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. The attorney general’s office will file suit once President Barack Obama signs the bill into law, which could occur early this week.

“At no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service,“ Cuccinelli said in a statement last night.

-

After the U.S. House's historic vote Sunday night passing the health care reform bill, South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster issued the following statement:

"The health care legislation Congress passed tonight is an assault against the Constitution of the United States. It contains various provisions and federal mandates that are clearly unconstitutional and must not be allowed to stand.

-

Moments after Congress voted to approve President Obama's health care legislation, Florida's Attorney General announced he will file a lawsuit to declare the bill unconstitutional.

Bill McCollum will join Attorneys General from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota and South Dakota to file a lawsuit against the federal government.

"The health care reform legislation passed by the U. S. House of Representatives this evening clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state's sovereignty," McCollum said in a statement distributed late Sunday night.

-

I'd advise New York, with our massive budget problems, and the additional budget stress ObamaCare will cause our state in unfunded expansions of Medicare and Medicaide, to join in, although I doubt NY AG Andrew Cuomo is any more concerned about our Constitutional rights than Obama or Pelosi. But in case he is, New Yorkers: here's the form to send him.

Intolerable.

Dr. Feulner of Heritage lays it out as well as I possibly could:

Unconstitutional.
Against the clear will of the people.
Intolerable.


This must not stand.


Additionally:

• Obamacare Isn’t Inevitable


• Happy Warriors Still


• Our Mission: Repeal It.

Democracy Denied

Changing How Washington Works, for the Worse

Via Americans For Prosperity
H/T Smitty

The Extended Case Against the Healthcare Bill

The Heritage Foundation notes: "there is no bill but the Senate bill" and that "a review of just how terrible it really is, is in order".

Their case against:

New Middle-Class Taxes: Throughout his campaign, President Barack Obama promised he would not raise taxes on American households making less than $250,000. The Senate bill shatters that promise. For starters, just look at the reason Trumka went to the White House yesterday: the excise tax on high-cost health insurance plans. This tax would overwhelmingly hit middle-class taxpayers. Taxes on prescription drugs, wheel chairs and other medical devices would also be passed on to all consumers, hitting the lower- and middle- classes the hardest.

Increased Health Care Costs: The Senate bill manifestly does nothing to bend the health care cost curve downward. According to the latest CBO report, the Senate bill would actually increase health care spending by $210 billion over the next 10 years. This follows a previous report from the President’s own Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) showing the Senate bill would result in $234 billion in additional health care spending over 10 years.

Increased Health Insurance Premiums: The President initially promised that Americans would see a $2,500 annual reduction in their family health care costs. But under the Senate bill, premiums would go up for millions of Americans. In fact, according to the CBO, estimated premiums in the individual market would be 10–13 percent higher by 2016 than they would be under current law.

Increased Deficits: Despite claiming to be comprehensive health care reform, the Senate bill does not address the fact that Medicare’s current price-fixing doctor reimbursement scheme is set to reduce doctor payments by 21% this year. That simply is not going to happen. Congress will pass that fix separately. If that cost were included, Obamacare is already $200 billion in the red. Now throw in the fact that the Senate bill is paid for with another $463 billion in Medicare cuts to health care providers. CMS says if these cuts occur, one-fifth of all health care providers will face bankruptcy. That simply is not going to happen. Just like the doctor reimbursement cuts have never happened, the Obamacare Medicare cuts will never happen. So in reality, Obamacare will add almost $700 billion to our national deficit in the next ten years alone.

Increases Unemployment and Puts Millions of Americans on Welfare: According to The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis (CDA), a dynamic analysis of the tax hikes and deficits created by the Senate bill shows that an average 690,000 jobs per year would be lost if it became law. In addition, over half of all Americans who would gain health insurance through the bill (18 million out of 33 million) would do so by being placed on Medicaid, which is a welfare program.

Higher taxes, higher health care costs, higher health insurance premiums, higher deficits, more unemployment and more Americans on welfare. That is America’s future should the Senate Obamacare bill become law.

Quick Hits:

• According to the Treasury Department, the National Debt has increased over $2 trillion over the 421 days since President Obama took office.


• If the House does pass the Senate bill, dozens of conservative lawmakers and candidates have signed a pledge to back an effort to repeal the measure.


• Yesterday Mark Levin posted the complaint his Landmark Legal Foundation will file in federal court if the House uses the Slaughter Rule to pass the Senate bill.


• Over half of the Americans who gain health insurance through the Senate bill will not be able to get their drugs from Washington state Walgreens, since they announced yesterday that as of April 16th they will not accept any new Medicaid patients.


• According to Gallup, Americans firmly prioritize the economy over the environment and fewer than half of Democrats now believe environmental protection is the more important goal.

Why You Should Oppose the Healthcare Bill (and call your congressperson right now!)

The Democrats are poised to try to force the controversial Healthcare bill through by this Saturday Sunday, passing the Senate bill plus a number of "fixes" that they'd expect the Senate to pass through reconciliation. They're ready to use the shadiest of political tricks to make this happen -- as the Washington Post headline puts it: "House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it".

All this while the majority Americans oppose the bill.

My objections to the bill are many. But I've given a lot of thought to how to boil them down to a single, simple objection.

Fundamentally my biggest objection comes back to the principle which eminent economist F. A. Hayek so brilliantly captured in this bit from his book The Fatal Conceit:

The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.

Our country has more than 300 million people. What utter hubris that politicians think they can design a system that will adequately meet all their needs.

They can't, because it won't.

Healthcare is tremendously complex. Even if the House and Senate were comprised of the very smartest people in the United States, they absolutely can not understand each and every factor influencing all 300 million individuals' healthcare needs, wants, and choices.

So, what's the alternative?

The alternative is to get government out of the way, and let the free market work.

"But the free market has failed!" some object. No, it hasn't. We just don't notice when it's working.

An arbitrary example: Unlike the experience of most past generations of humanity, I would wager you didn't worry about if you'd be able to eat today. We have an abundance of those willing to exchange food for our money. That's the market at work. Two people, each working to satisfy his own self interest, and through trade they manage to make each other better off. You get food, which you wanted more than the money; they get money, which they wanted more than the food. Win-win.

And in a properly functioning market, there's competition, which give you choices. Maybe supermarket A charges a bit more but has fresher produce than supermarket B. That empowers you to decide which you want more - fresher produce or money left in your wallet. It also forces competitors - still acting out of self interest - to take your wants and needs seriously. Not because they altruistically care about you, but because if they don't, you have other options.


And the proper functioning of the healthcare market - particularly the health insurance market - is at stake with this bill.


Already government interference distorts the market here to our disadvantage. Most of us get our health insurance through our employer because their are antiquated tax benefits to doing so.

What this means is that we have fewer choices. We can only choose the insurance options our employers offer us. This often means you can only choose a plan from a single insurance provider. Imagine if you could only buy groceries from a single store. No longer could you choose preferences like more expensive but fresher fruit; and if the store raised prices, you'd have no where else to go.

Incredibly, the healthcare bill wants to take this existing choice-destorying system and double down on it. The bill will require all employers to provide healthcare insurance to their employees, meaning that that minority who actually choose from a larger array of health insurers when they purchasing health insurance in the individual market will no longer do so.

Additionally, every single American will have to purchase health insurance or face steep tax penalties and/or jail time. This is like if government told you not only do you only have a single grocery store to shop at, but you you are required to shop there or go to jail.

And they are adding new requirements around what must be included in health insurance plans. This is like the government telling you that you'd have to buy certain foods at that grocery store every time you go shopping. You're allergic to milk? Too bad - buying a gallon of milk every month is mandatory. (The country needs strong bones!) You hate the taste of tomatoes? Too bad - 3 tomatoes a month is mandatory. (We have a cancer epidemic! The country needs its lycopene!)


There is magic that happens when free people can make free choices in a market. It leads to producers and consumers each getting fair deals. It leads to innovation. It leads to prosperity.

The proposed legislation wants to takes us in the opposite direction. Fewer consumer choices. More government mandates. The result will be less innovation. Less prosperity. Worse healthcare outcomes.


If you care about what your healthcare choices will be, what your family's healthcare choices will be, and what the next generation's healthcare choices will be: Please, contact your Representative TODAY and tell them to oppose this proposed legislation!


Additional resources:

• Cato Daily Podcast - Michael F. Cannon: ObamaCare Threatens Innovation


• EconTalk: Roberts on Smith, Ricardo, and Trade - perhaps one of the best primers on the free market / trade out there


• Cato Book Forum: From Poverty to Prosperity: Intangible Assets, Hidden Liabilities and the Lasting Triumph over Scarcity - particularly Arnold Kling's comments on what makes prosperity work around the 47 minute mark; his answer: "trial and error" which only works when there are choices


• Healthcare posts on the Cafe Hayek blog


• Stop Un-American Healthcare Tumblelog


• The Cato Institute on Healthcare


• Heritage - Fix Health Care Policy

Dennis Kucinich Sells Out His Principles

It's not often Rep. Kucinich and I agree on much, but we did in February, when called attention to how the bill passed by the Senate (coming up for a vote now in the House) was essentially a boon to the insurance companies, as it requires every American to buy insurance from them, but does little-to-nothing to actually increase competition between them:

The entire health care debate was flipped upside down by insurance interests who were able to intervene so that the final product that was offered out of the Senate was nothing more than a sell-out to the insurance industry.

- Rep. Kucinich, February 4, 2010


And, as recently as a week ago:

This bill represents a giveaway to the insurance industry. $70 billion dollars a year, and no guarantees of any control over premiums, forcing people to buy private insurance, five consecutive years of double-digit premium increases.

- Rep. Kucinich, March 9, 2010


But, after getting worked over by the Whitehouse this week, compare and contrast:

In the past week it's become clear that the vote on the final health bill will be very close.
...
If my vote is to be counted, let it count now for passage of the bill.

- Rep. Kucinich, March 17, 2010


Way to abandon your principles, Rep. Kucinich.


Ironically, now it's myself and hyper-liberal Jane Hamsher who are agreeing:

Kucinich is voting for a bill he has repeatedly called corrupt and harmful to the people of his district.
...
Dennis Kucinich signed a pledge to vote against any bill that does not have a public option. Online supporters donated over $17,000 to him over the past two days as a direct response to his reiteration of that promise this week. It would be deceitful of him to keep that money now, as well as the $8,000 raised after he signed that pledge in July.

I think Kucinich's original call for, and Hamsher's continued push for, a "public option" is misguided.

But they were both right to claim that without a public option, the Senate bill now being considered in the House is a giant sell out to the insurance lobby. What a shame.

It's a sad day indeed to see that President Obama has apparently stolen Dennis Kucinich's spine.

Yay for the Micro-Processor

Check out this Fire Control Computer video from 1953. Crazy stuff - and - my, how things have changed!