As you can see, these are major, major components of this bill. What Barack Obama and the Democrats have promised is precisely the opposite of what they're delivering.The Senate Finance Committee continued its mark-up of the America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 on Wednesday, September 30, 2009.
President Barack Obama made a couple of very high-profile promises concerning key issues that have emerged during the August recess and in contentious congressional town hall meetings. In his September 9, 2009 address to Congress and the nation in a special session of Congress, the President said that Americans could be assured that in his version of health care reform, there would be no federal funding of abortion nor the use of taxpayer funds to cover illegal immigrants.
In the key policy decisions of the Senate Finance Committee, those promises counted for little.
Protection of the Rights of Conscience (Hatch Amendment C13)
As noted, President Obama told Congress and the nation that, “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place”. In that spirit, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) presented two amendments to remove any uncertainty and reinforce the President’s very public commitment. Sen. Hatch’s first amendment would have protected federal conscience laws; it would have prohibited discrimination against medical professionals who did not want to practice or participate in abortion and protect the right of conscience of physicians and other health care professionals, as well as officials of health care facilities, organizations, and insurance plans. Countering Senate Democrats who declared the amendment unnecessary, Sen. Hatch said the bill’s language was ambiguous, and he sought to erase all doubt in the Committee’s intentions regarding the issue. The Committee voted against Sen. Hatch’s amendment 10-13. Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) voted with Senate Democrats against the amendment, while Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) voted with Hatch and Senate Republicans for the amendment.
Federal Funding for Abortion (c-14)
Sen. Hatch’s second amendment would have prohibited federal funds from being used for elective abortions or to subsidize insurance plans that cover abortions. Hatch provided that nothing would stop insurers from offering supplemental policies for abortion—but plans funded or subsidized by the federal government could not provide abortion. Sen. Hatch’s amendment also provided exceptions to this law in the cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother. Hatch’s rationale was to codify official promises made on both sides of the aisle that taxpayer dollars would not fund abortions. Though the Hyde Amendment already provides for such a restriction on the use of taxpayers’ money, it must be passed every year. Sen. Hatch’s amendment would have also written the President’s promise into law. The Hatch amendment failed in the Senate Finance Committee 10-13. Senators Snowe and Conrad also crossed party lines again in their votes.
Using Taxpayers Dollars to Cover Illegal Immigrants (Grassley Amendment C8 )
In his address on health care, President Obama also stated that, “…there are those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms…I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.” This statement ignited South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson’s controversial outburst.
To secure the President’s commitment, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) introduced an amendment that would require proof of citizenship in order to access federal health programs. Sen. Grassley’s amendment would have required proper identification in applying for Medicaid benefits: Medicaid applicants, or the guardian of an applicant under the age of 18, would present government-issued identification at the time of application for Medicaid or CHIP benefits. Sen. Grassley’s amendment failed by a vote of 10-13. It was a party line vote, with Senate Democrats voting against the Grassley amendment.
Increased Consumer Costs. (Enzi Amendment C4, Grassley Amendment F1, and Hatch Amendment F17)
The President has said repeatedly that he would oppose middle class tax increases, and that, as a result of health reform, the typical American family would see a $2500 annual reduction in their health premium costs. Nonetheless, the Senate Finance Committee “mark” contains various taxes, which would be tantamount to middle class tax increases. These include taxes on insurance companies based on their market shares, taxes on drug manufacturers, taxes on medical device manufacturers, and taxes on clinical laboratories. Economists know, of course, that such additional taxes are passed on to consumers through higher insurance premiums and higher costs for drugs and medical devices. Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) proposed amendments to protect Americans against these proposed tax increases.
Sen. Enzi’s amendment would have required that- before implementing the bill’s new insurance rating rules, each state’s State Insurance Commissioner would have to certify that insurance premiums would not rise for a majority of residents. This amendment failed by a vote of 10-13 along a party line.
Sen. Grassley’s offered an amendment to strike the bill’s additional fees on health insurance plans. Title VI of the Chairman’s mark imposes a fee of $60 billion on insurance providers, which would be apportioned among all health insurance providers based on their market shares. The Grassley amendment was also defeated on a party line vote.
Finally, Sen. Hatch offered up an amendment that would have required the Government Accountability Office to certify that consumers would not pay the higher taxes imposed on health insurers, manufacturers of drugs and medical devices, and clinical laboratories. During the debate , Chairman Baucus expressed the novel belief that such annual fees would be borne by companies, and that they would not be passed onto the consumers. In that spirit, Sen. Hatch’s amendment would have codified the Chairman’s good intentions. The Committee nonetheless voted, along party lines, against the Hatch Amendment by a 10 to 13 vote.
The Senate Finance Committee, once again, has given ordinary Americans another insight into the gap between official Washington’s promises and the reality of the health care legislation being developed in Congress. Based on the President’s clearly stated intentions, on such matters as illegal immigration and taxpayer funding of abortion, it is obvious that the White House Office of Congressional Relations needs to do a better job communicating them to the Senate.
And rest assured, each of these things will affect you directly. Even then, it would not be fair, at least not according to any objective measure:
Under the current Baucus proposal, individuals would face a tax of at least $750 if they do not purchase health coverage. And while the proposal would provide subsidies to lower-income Americans, those subsidies would stop at 300 percent of the federal poverty level. What that means is that a family of four with a household income above $66,150 would face a tax of $1,900 if it does not obtain health insurance, while an individual with income above $32,490 would face a tax of $950.This is your wealth redistribution at work. This is what everything will be like in Barack Obama's America if he is not stopped.
The best disinfectant is sunlight, as they say, and Obama promised unprecedented transparency. Too bad we haven't seen it, though Americans are still expecting it. In fact, Americans overwhelmingly believe Congress should post all bills online before voting on them:
Just Republican griping? Not even close:Eighty-three percent (83%) of U.S. voters say legislation should be posted online in final form and available for everyone to read before Congress votes on it. The only exception would be for extreme emergencies.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds only six percent (6%) of voters disagree with this approach while 10% are not sure.
Of those who favor posting congressional bills in their final form on the Internet, 64% say they should be available to the public two weeks or more before Congress votes and 29% favor posting bills one week before a vote. Just four percent (4%) think three days before a congressional vote is soon enough, while one percent (1%) say one day is enough.
Eighty-five percent (85%) of Republicans, 76% of Democrats and 92% of voters not affiliated with either party favor posting non-emergency bills online for the public to read before they are voted on by Congress.Remember, the reason they're trying to ram this through so quickly is because the longer people have to examine the provisions of this bill, and watch the tactics of the Left, the more opposition there is. The more time passes, the less likely they'll be able to accomplish this, thus the rush.
We've discussed the latest underhanded tactic of the Left in trying to sneak ObamaKennedyDeathCare into law, but it calls for a review because it is so critical to understand. Here's how it would work:
How is this anything resembling the transparency Obama promised? It's not. But they may very well do it anyway. It all comes back to just how politically suicidal they are.President Obama and liberals in Congress seems intent on passing comprehensive health care reform, even though polls suggest it is unpopular with the American people. And despite the potential political risks to moderate Democrats, the President and left-wing leadership in Congress are determined to pass the measure using a rare parliamentary procedure.
The Senate plans to attach Obamacare to a House-passed non-healthcare bill. Ironically, nobody knows what that legislation looks like, because it has not yet been written. Yet many members plan to rubber-stamp Obamacare without reading or understanding the bill.
The Senate Finance Committee worked furiously last week to mark up a "conceptual framework" of health care reform. The committee actually rejected an amendment by Sen. Jim Bunning (R.-Ky.) to mandate that the bill text and a final cost analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) be publicly available at least 72 hours before the Finance Committee votes on final passage.
The following four-step scenario describes one way liberals plan to work the rules in their favor to get Obamacare through the Senate:
Step 1: The Senate Finance Committee must first approve the marked-up version of Sen. Max Baucus' (D.-Mont.) conceptual framework. Then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) can say that two Senate Committees have passed a health care bill, which will allow him to take extraordinary steps to get the bill on the Senate floor.
During the mark-up last week, members had difficulty offering amendments and trying to make constructive changed because they lacked actual legislative text and Baucus made unilateral last minute changes. For example, the AP reported that "under pressure from fellow Democrats, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee decided to commit an additional $50 billion over a decade toward making insurance more affordable for working-class families."
Step 2: Sen. Reid will take the final product of the Senate Finance Committee and merge it with the product of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which passed on a party-line vote in July.
Usually, a bill is voted out of committee, and then the Senate takes up the final product of the committee so that all 100 senators can have a hand in the process. With some help from the Obama administration, Reid will decide what aspects of the HELP and Finance Committee bills to keep.
Step 3: Now, Obamacare will be ready to hitch a ride on an unrelated bill from the House. Sen. Reid will move to proceed to H.R. 1586, a bill to impose a tax on bonuses received by certain TARP recipients. This bill was passed by the House in the wake of the AIG bonus controversy and is currently sitting on the Senate Legislative Calendar.
The move to proceed needs 60 votes to start debate. After the motion is approved, Sen. Reid will offer Obamacare as a complete substitute to the unrelated House-passed bill. This means that the entire healthcare reform effort will be included as an amendment to a TARP bill that has been collecting dust in the Senate for months.
Step 4: For this strategy to work, the proponents would need to hold together the liberal caucus of 58 Democrats (including Paul Kirk who was named last Thursday to replace Sen. Kennedy), and the two Independent senators (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont). These members will have to all hold hands and vote against any filibuster. Once the Senate takes up the bill, only a simple majority of members will be needed for passage. It's possible one of the endangered moderate Democrats, such as Sen. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), could vote to stop a filibuster then vote against Obamacare so as not to offend angry constituents.
Once the Senate passes a bill and sends it to the House, all the House would have to do is pass the bill without changes and President Obama will be presented with his health care reform measure. If this plan does not work, the Senate and House leadership may go back to considering using reconciliation to pass the legislation.
Adopting this secret plan will not strike most Americans as a transparent, bipartisan, effective way to change how millions of Americans get their health care.
Do you want to see the answer to that question?
Neither do I.
There's my two cents.
Related Reading:
Canadian patients condemn socialized medicine
Empower Patients First Act: another conservative alternative plan
Can Obama afford to win on health care?
CBO: Medicare cuts means benefit cuts
Obama's health care bait-and-switch
No comments:
Post a Comment