Idaho Libertarian Times Podcast#9
CONTACT YOUR SENATOR & CONGRESSMAN AT THIS LINK & TELL THEM TO STOP THE CHARADE!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/20/nelson-accused-selling-vote-health-nebraska-pay/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528FOXNews.com+-+Politics%2529
Updated December 20, 2009
Nelson Accused of Selling Vote on Health Bill for Nebraska Pay-Off
FOXNews.com
What started as Sen. Ben Nelson's personal stand against covering abortion with taxpayer money translated, somehow, into millions of dollars in federal aid for his home state -- drawing criticism that his vote was bought.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of the Senate Democrats' Health Care Bill
Written by Heritage.org
Sunday, 20 December 2009 09:32
An Analysis of the Senate Democrats' Health Care Bill by the Staff of the Center for Health Policy and the Staff of the Center for Data Analysis
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200912207858/politics-and-economics/analysis-of-the-senate-democrats-health-care-bill.html
Analysis of the Senate Democrats' Health Care Bill
Written by Heritage.org
Sunday, 20 December 2009 09:32
An Analysis of the Senate Democrats' Health Care Bill by the Staff of the Center for Health Policy and the Staff of the Center for Data Analysis
The U.S. Senate is locked in an intense floor debate over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), a massive 2,074-page health care bill that would directly affect every man, woman, and child in the United States. Its enactment would shape the character and quality of life in America for generations to come.
The Senate bill's complex and sweeping provisions would affect virtually every aspect of the huge health care sector of the U.S. economy.
* Like the House bill,[1] it would transfer massive regulatory authority from the states to the federal government and make enormous changes in the nation's health insurance markets;
* It would dramatically alter the financing and content of employer-provided and individual health insurance and significantly change Medicare and Medicaid;
* It would change how hospitals, doctors, and other medical professionals are paid and how physicians and other medical professionals deliver care; and
* It would impose controversial and unprecedented mandates on businesses and individuals, including an individual mandate to buy insurance,[2] thus restricting the personal and economic freedom of American citizens.
FURTHER
Regardless of one's views of the Senate bill, it does not comport with the broad popular themes articulated by President Barack Obama and the many congressional leaders who have championed these policies. Contrary to the President's repeated promises to the American people,[5] the Senate bill, like its House counterpart, would:
* Cause many Americans to lose their current health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that up to 10 million Americans would no longer be covered by their employers.[6] Given the bill's incentives for employers to discontinue job-based coverage, independent analysts expect the loss of employer-based coverage to be much higher.
* Bend the cost curve up. According to independent analysts and government actuaries, the bill would substantially increase total health care spending instead of reducing it as promised. Richard Foster, Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), recently judged the projected savings from the Medicare updates as "doubtful" and estimated that the total national spending on health care would increase.[7]
* Impose many new taxes on middle-class Americans. The Senate bill contains over a dozen new taxes, including a 40 percent excise tax on high-priced health plans and special fees and taxes on insurance, drugs, medical devices, and anyone who violates the new mandates.[8]
* Reduce many seniors' access to Medicare benefits and services. The bill would reduce Medicare payments by an estimated $493 billion over 10 years,[9] including payment reductions for Medicare Advantage, hospital care, home health care, and nursing homes.
* Provide federal funding for abortion. Contrary to the President's clear statement to Congress and the nation on health care reform,[10] the Senate bill would provide funding for abortion. The House would prohibit using taxpayers' dollars to finance abortion, but a similar amendment to the Senate bill was tabled without even a floor vote.[11]
AND WORSE!
The bill has over a dozen new taxes, including:
* A 40 percent excise tax on "high value" health care plans of $8,500 or more for an individual and $23,000 or more for a couple ($149.1 billion in new taxes over the next 10 years);
* A 0.5 percent hike in the Medicare payroll tax for single earners over $200,000 and joint earners over $250,000 ($53.8 billion);
* Changes in health savings accounts (HSAs), Archer Medical Spending Accounts, health flexible spending accounts (FSAs), and health reimbursement arrangements ($5 billion);
* A $2,500 cap on FSAs in cafeteria plans ($14.6 billion);
* An increase from 10 percent to 20 percent in the penalty for early non-qualified HSA withdrawals ($1.3 billion);
* A tax on branded drugs ($22.2 billion);
* An annual tax on the health insurers[31] ($60.4 billion);
* A tax on companies that manufacture or import medical devices ($19.3 billion);
* A 0.5 percent excise tax on cosmetic surgery ($5.8 billion over 10 years);
* An increase in the floor of the medical expenses deduction from 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income to 10 percent, except for seniors, who will stay at 7.5 percent ($15.2 billion);
* Elimination of the Medicare Part D (prescription drug) deduction ($5.4 billion);
* A $500,000 cap on the tax deduction for the salaries of employees of health insurance companies ($0.6 billion over 10 years)[32]; and
* A mandate on companies with more than 50 employees to provide health coverage or pay a $750 penalty per employee for those who obtain coverage through the insurance exchange ($36 billion over 10 years) and a mandate on individuals to obtain coverage or pay a tax penalty.[33]
FootNotes:
[1]For an overview of the House-passed bill, see "A Closer Look at the House Democrats' Health Care Bill," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2684, November 6, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/
HealthCare/wm2684.cfm.
[2]While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) dismissed as unserious a question about the constitutionality of imposing a health insurance mandate on individuals, the question is very serious indeed. See Randy Barnett, Nathaniel Stewart, and Todd F. Gaziano, "Why the Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional," Heritage Foundation Legal Memorandum No. 49, December 9, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm0049.cfm.
[3]The latest CNN poll shows that 61 percent of Americans oppose the bill. See "CNN Opinion Research Poll," December 10, 2009, at http://i.a.cnn.
net/cnn/2007/images/12/10/rel12a.pdf (December 18, 2009). A new Rasmussen poll found that only 34 percent of Americans say that passing health care is better than passing nothing. See "Just 34% Say Passing Health Care Bill Is Better Than Passing Nothing," December 18, 2009, at http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/
healthcare/december_2009/just_34_say_passing_health_care_bill_is_better
_than_passing_nothing (December 18, 2009). Finally, a Galen Institute survey found that key components of the legislation, particularly the individual mandate, are highly unpopular. See "Galen Institute Releases Poll Showing Overwhelming Opposition to the Individual Mandate and Other Key Components of Congressional Health Care Proposal," October 18, 2009, at http://www.galen.org/component,8/action,show_content/id,71/blog_id,1291
/type,33/?_highlight=survey (December 18, 2009).
[4]Editorial, "Medicare Sausage?"The Washington Post, December 10, 2009, p. A28, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/
2009/12/09/AR2009120903902.html (December 14, 2009).
[5]Barack Obama, "Remarks by the President to a Joint Session of Congress on Health Care," September 9, 2009, at http://www.whitehouse
.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-a-Joint-Session-of
-Congress-on-Health-Care (December 15, 2009).
[6]"We estimate that between 9 million and 10 million other people who would be covered by an employment-based plan under current law would not have an offer of such coverage under the proposal." Congressional Budget Office staff e-mail to the Office of Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), December 7, 2009, at http://enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&
FileStore_id=24239e66-4ab7-4135-8b66-e84c32056c37 and http://enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.News
Releases&ContentRecord_id=6f4cab2a-802a-23ad-4379-5430a0a3bb03
&Region_id=&Issue_id (December 18, 2009).
[7]Richard S. Foster, "Estimated Financial Effects of the 'Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009,' as proposed by the Senate Majority Leader on November 18, 2009," U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary, December 10, 2009, pp. 19-20 at http://src.senate.gov/files/OACT
MemorandumonFinancialImpactofPPAA(HR3590)(12-10-09).pdf (December 14, 2009).
[8]Joint Committee on Taxation, "Estimated Revenue Effects of the Revenue Provisions Contained in the Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act," November 18, 2009, at http://jct.gov/publications.html?func=start
down&id=3635. Also, for a discussion of the taxes proposed in the House and Senate bills, see Curtis S. Dubay, "Taxes Proposed to Pay for Health Care Reform," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2706, November 20, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2706.cfm.
[9]Foster, "Estimated Financial Effects of the 'Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009,'" p. 8.
[10]Obama, "Remarks by the President to a Joint Session of Congress on Health Care."
[11]For more discussion, see Chuck Donovan and Robert Moffit, "House Bill Wrong on Values," Centre Daily Times (State College, Pennsylvania), November 23, 2009.
[12]Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Remarks on the Senate Floor, December 2, 2009.
[13]Congressional Budget Office, "Information on Medicare's Payments to Physicians and the Budgetary Effects of H.R. 3961, the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009," November 19, 2009, at http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/press/2007/pr20091119cboscore.pdf (December 14, 2009).
[14]Douglas W. Elmendorf, Congressional Budget Office, letter to Senator Harry Reid, November 18, 2009, at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs
/107xx/doc10731/Reid_letter_11_18_09.pdf (December 14, 2009).
[15]Congressional Budget Office, "Preliminary Analysis of the Affordable Health Care for America Act as Introduced in the House of Representatives on October 29," Director's Blog, October 29, 2009, at http://cboblog.cbo.
gov/?p=403 (December 14, 2009).
[16]James C. Capretta, "A $4.9 Trillion Spending Increase," National Review Online, November 19, 2009, at http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post
/?q=OTc1MjEzYjI5NzM0M2Y1YjUwNzZhZmVhZGFhYTQxYjI (December 14, 2009).
[17]Foster, "Estimated Financial Effects of the 'Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009,'" p. 10.
[18]Ibid., p. 14.
[19]Capretta, "A $4.9 Trillion Spending Increase."
[20]Ibid.
[21]Ibid.
[22]See Barnett et al., "Why the Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional."
[23]See Sections 1401-1402, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009. The Senate bill provides a generous tax credit and cost-sharing assistances for individuals and families earning between 100 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) and 400 percent FPL. Premiums would be based on percent of income, ranging from a 2 percent cap to a 9.8 percent cap. The cost-sharing assistance would also be income-based.
[24]For a more detailed discussion of this unusual set of problems and the inequities created under the Senate bill, see Robert A. Book, "How the Senate Health Bill Punishes Businesses That Hire Low-Income Workers," Heritage Foundation WebMemoNo. 2716, December 3, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2716.cfm, and James C. Capretta, "The Senate Health Care Bill's Firewall Creates Disparate Subsidies," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No 2730, December 11, 2009, at www.heritage.org/researchy/healthcare/wm2730.cfm.
[25]H.R. 3962 (House Bill), Sections 222(b)(8) and 222(c)(1)(A). Section 1001(1) of the Senate bill (H.R. 3590) amends the Public Health Services Act, including adding these provisions as a new Section 2713(a)(1) in the PHSA.
[26]See Edmund F. Haislmaier, "Health Insurance Co-ops: How Congress Could Adopt the Right Design," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2290, June 25, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/healthcare/bg2290.cfm.
[27]The original version of the bill required the new government-run plan to offer the "essential" health benefits, as defined by federal authorities, but the states could require the plan to offer more benefits in states where the plan competed against private plans. The HHS Secretary would set rates for the government-run plan and be empowered to negotiate the rates for doctors and hospitals. Under the bill, the rates must not be higher than the "average" rates paid to doctors and hospitals by the qualified private health plans. The CBO has estimated that the rates for the government-run health plan would be higher than private-sector rates for a variety of reasons, including "adverse selection," the likelihood that the public plan would attract proportionally more older or sicker enrollees. Congress would provide start-up funding for the government health plan, but premiums would cover claims, administrative costs, and contingency reserves. The government plan would be subject to both federal and state solvency and consumer protection laws.
[28]In its initial analysis of the original version of the Senate's "public plan," the CBO estimated that most Americans would live in states with a government plan. But without the imposition of Medicare rates to reduce payments to doctors and hospitals well below those of the private sector and with a low estimated take-up rate (3 million to 4 million according to an earlier CBO projection), some liberal analysts who championed a "robust public option" started to question the point of the Senate's "public option" proposal. Many liberals, such as Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY), saw the Senate leadership's recent proposal to expand Medicare to include persons well below the normal retirement age as a superior way to move toward a single-payer system of national health insurance, but the Senate leadership, as noted, discarded this option as well.
[29]David M. Herszenhorn and Robert Pear, "High Premiums in Senate Democrats' Health Plan," The New York Times, December 10, 2009, at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/health/policy/11insure.html (December 14, 2009).
[30]Ibid.
[31]This tax would also apply to Medicare Advantage plans and private plans offered in the FEHBP, meaning that seniors and federal employees would also pay higher taxes. For a discussion of the special health insurance premium tax, see Edmund F. Haislmaier, "The Senate Health Bill: Cost of the Insurance Premium Tax to Individuals and Families," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2350, December 9, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/bg2350.cfm.
[32]Joint Committee on Taxation, "Estimated Revenue Effects of the Revenue Provisions Contained in the Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act."
[33]Under the federal tax code, similar employees with similar incomes are treated very differently in their purchase of health insurance. Those who receive health insurance through employers get unlimited tax breaks for that purchase; those who obtain health insurance outside the workplace receive no tax relief. As noted, the Senate bill includes this strange new provision, which introduces a whole new set of inequities into the health care system. See Book, "How the Senate Health Bill Punishes Businesses That Hire Low-Income Workers."
[34]Foster, "Estimated Financial Effects of the 'Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009,'" p. 14.
[35]Ibid., p. 13.
CONTACT YOUR SENATOR & CONGRESSMAN AT THIS LINK & TELL THEM TO STOP THE CHARADE!
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/12/16/taunton_officials_dispute_reports_on_jesus_sketch/The Boston Globe
Taunton officials dispute reports on Jesus sketch
Say boy not suspended, no evaluation ordered
By David Abel
Globe Staff / December 16, 2009
TAUNTON - City officials sharply disputed yesterday widely distributed reports that a local elementary school suspended a second-grader and required the boy to undergo a psychological evaluation for drawing a picture of Jesus on the cross.
The story, initially reported by the local newspaper, raised questions of religious bias days before Christmas and was broadcast by local television stations and other news media. Making the story more compelling, the boy’s father held court for much of the day at his girlfriend’s apartment, granting interviews to reporters from Providence to Boston, demanding that the school district compensate him for his family’s pain and suffering.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ksdk.com/news/national/story.aspx?storyid=192101&catid=28
KSDK.com
ACLU threat prompts removal of holiday display in Pennsylvania
NBC -- The grounds of Pennsylvania's Luzerne County Courthouse are no longer home to a nativity scene or menorah. The county decided to remove the displays under the threat of legal action. Workers began hastily taking down the religious displays Wednesday night under legal pressure. It all comes down to the constitution and separation of church and state.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://townhall.com/columnists/OliverNorth/2009/12/18/be_afraid,_very_afraid?page=1Friday, December 18, 2009
Townhall.com Columnist
Be Afraid, Very Afraid
by Oliver North
WASHINGTON -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is Time magazine's "Person of the Year." Twelve months ago, the "honor" went to then-President-elect Barack Obama. Notably, the 1932 recipient was President-elect Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who asserted in his March 4, 1933, inaugural address, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://consumerist.com/2009/12/no-fedex-kinkos-will-not-print-your-naked-family-christmas-cards.html
community standards
No, Fedex Kinko's Will Not Print Your Naked Family Christmas Cards
By Chris Walters on December 17, 2009 4:29 PM
Bob Cringely and his family send out family portrait cards every year for Christmas, and the gimmick is the entire family is nude, but not really nude: all the naughty parts are hidden away behind carefully placed props or accessories. The Fedex Kinko's in Charleston, SC doesn't appreciate his family's sense of humor--the woman there even remembered him from last year, and not in a good way.
Recent Comments