The news keeps getting tougher for the House Leadership in their irrational quest to pass their ObamaCare bill.

First, the Associated Press is reporting the bill will cost $1.2 Trillion without the doctor fix of $250 billion.

The new total will be $1.45 trillion — because the House Leadership intends to create a “self-executing rule” that would pull the doctor fix apart from the House ObamaCare bill — in order to keep the cost at $1.2 Trillion, then fuse the doc fix back into the ObamaCare bill after it passes the House.

It is like a magic trick, presto — $250 billion in new spending just appears in the bill after it passes.

Meanwhile, the new $1.45 billion ought to send the Blue Dogs scampering from the bill.

Then, of course, the House is finally grappling with two thermonuclear issues: abortion and immigration.

But, as numerous news reports state, the Democratic Leaders still do not have the votes for the bill — rumors abound, the most credible put the House vote count at less than 200 for the bill.

The more fundamental question is, why is the U.S. House voting before the U.S. Senate? House leadership has already moved the vote from Thursday to Friday, and are now talking about the vote being moved to Saturday or Monday of Tuesday of next week. House leaders should just punt the vote until after the Senate, and save their members — and themselves — the pain of voting.

Especially when the Senate is now talking post-Thanksgiving for its floor vote?

Why is the Speaker forcing its members to walk the plank again, prior to the Senate vote, especially when it is likely that the bill will never get off the Senate floor?

Read More →

MEMORANDUM EXCLUSIVE FOR REDSTATERS
FROM: Michael Hammond
RE: The Pelosi Bill

-The real cost of the bill is at least $1.3 trillion (the CBO score, plus the “doc fix”) –- and probably much, much more.

-The absolute minimum increase in the deficit would be $150 billion. You can probably add to this most of the $426 billion in supposed Medicare “cuts,” plus the substantial overruns in program costs as a result of underestimation of premiums. A deficit increase of between half a trillion dollars and a trillion dollars is almost certain.

-Employers would be required to purchase government-mandated government-prescribed insurance for all of their employees with premiums which, according to some estimates, would be double the minimum wage. With a penalty which, for most employees, would be 8% of payroll, it would be more economical to drop insurance for anyone making under $2-300,000, depending on the level of employer contribution.

-As a result, most individuals with employer-provided insurance will not be able to “keep the insurance they currently have.” The 10.2 million seniors with Medicare Advantage will also lose “the coverage they currently have.” And it is possible that the “grandfather” protection of individuals could be defeated by something as simple as a rate increase.

-Premiums will go through the roof and, unlike currently, Americans will be required to pay them, under penalty of law. Price Waterhouse estimates that the average family policy for a family of four will be $25,900 by 2019 (under the comparable Reid bill). And, although the study does not look at the impact of the subsidies, unlike the liberally touted Kaiser study, it does not ignore the impact of taxes on premiums.

Read More →

The House Democrat bill (in Section 222) not only requires coverage for the following services, but mandates that “there shall be no cost-sharing under the essential benefits package” for these services. Some of these services are unobjectionable, but to force them on all Americans, paid by taxpayer dollars in many cases, and free of charge rather than bearing some personal responsibility, is too much.

Included on list of mandated free services:

1. Alcohol misuse screening and behavioral counseling interventions
2. Chlamydial infection, screening
3. behavioral counseling in primary care to promote a healthy diet.
4. Gonorrhea, screening.
5. screening.
6. Obesity in adults, screening.
7. Sexually transmitted infections, counseling.
8. Tobacco use and tobacco-caused disease, counseling.

Americans should not be forced to pay for these benefits, let alone to give their tax dollars to make them free.

As the Senate Finance Committee takes its health care overhaul negotiations into the August recess, President Obama and key Senate negotiators are still struggling to find a way to afford the flagging health care overhaul proposal’s trillion dollar price tag. Their latest proposal, a new tax on so-called “gold-plated, Cadillac” health insurance policies, is receiving broad support from legislators and administration officials who see it as yet another opportunity to pay for an expansion of government by soaking the “rich” – a perception that is, thanks in large part to existing government policies, incredibly wrong.

The term “Cadillac” has been used for years to refer to health insurance policies that cover an inordinate number of unnecessary treatments and procedures. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), ranking minority member of the Senate Finance Committee and the Republican most closely working with the Democratic majority to pass President Obama’s health overhaul, said negotiators are “taking an intense look at” the proposal as a way of raising revenues to offset the $1 trillion the Finance overhaul bill is expected to cost.

Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), also a Finance Committee member, called the idea a “practical option” for “creating disincentives for the most expensive [health insurance] policies,” and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said his proposal to tie the maximum permitted coverage to the average level of benefits provided federal employees, and to tax the health insurance of those whose policies cost or cover more, is “gaining support” in the Senate.

This is being shopped to the public as just another tax on the super-wealthy, with Obama administration officials pointing to the “$40,000-a-year health insurance policies” carried by a handful of top Wall Street executives as examples of such unnecessarily luxurious coverage. However, a tax on “Cadillac” health insurance policies would end up disproportionately affecting middle- and lower-income Americans across the board, as well as the entire insured populations of several states.
The reason for this is the profusion of mandatory minimum coverages state governments require to be included in health insurance policies sold within their states’ borders. This results in residents being forced into uniformly high-priced, coverage-heavy “Cadillac” insurance policies as a result of state law, not their own choice.

Read More →