Check The Amendments That Went Down To Defeat In The Senate Finance Committee Underscoring That This Is A Death Care Bill – Obama Gives Doctors Financial Incentives For Rationing – Doctors Will Be Drafted Under Public Option - Obama To Destroy Jobs For The Poor In Appalachia - Russia To Peek At U.S. Nuke Sites, So Much For Our National Security – Obama Doesn’t Want the Economy To Come Back



Don't let anyone con you that rationing is not included in Obama's death care bills!  Obama believes in financial incentives for rationing with the elderly feeling the brunt of his cold-hearted policy!   Below is proof that rationing is alive and well while babies in the womb will not be so fortunate! - Gary L. Morella

Subject: Pro-Life News Report 10/14/09 #4727
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:46:28 -0400 Pro-Life News Report
Wednesday, October 14, 2009

For news updated throughout the day, visit

Current Headlines

Senate Committee Votes for Fifth Health Care Bill Promoting Tax-Funded Abortions
• Pro-Life Group Pans Baucus Bill, Launches New Ad on Abortion and Health Care
• Majority of Americans Oppose Pro-Abortion Health Care Reform as Senate Votes
• New Stem Cell Research Bill Could Promote Human Cloning, Destroying Embryos


Senate Committee Votes for Fifth Health Care Bill Promoting Tax-Funded Abortions

Washington, DC ( -- The Senate Finance Committee voted 14-9 today to send the fifth version of health care reform legislation to the floor of a chamber of Congress. The Baucus bill, named for the chairman of the panel who is its main sponsor, would fund abortions with massive subsidies. Lawmakers voted mostly along party lines with pro-abortion Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine joining the committee's pro-abortion Democrats to pass the bill. After rejecting pro-life amendments last week that would have ensured the Baucus health care bill does not fund abortions and to protect the conscience rights of medical professionals, pro-life groups urged opposition to the bill. On a 13-10 vote, the Senate Finance Committee rejected an amendment from Sen. Orrin Hatch that would have the bill conform to current federal law prohibiting direct abortion funding. The panel also rejected a second pro-life amendment that would have offered protection for medical workers who don't want to participate in or refer for abortions. A third amendment to stop rationing also went down in defeat. The finance panel is the last of five Congressional committees -- two in the Senate and three in the House -- to approve different health care bills. Full story at
Senate Panel Rejects Amdt to Cut Abortion Funding From Baucus Health Care Bill

by Steven Ertelt Editor
September 30, 2009

Add to My Yahoo!Email RSS Print

Washington, DC ( -- A Senate committee today voted against a critical amendment that would remove the massive abortion subsidies present in the Baucus health care bill. On a 13-10 vote, the Senate Finance Committee rejected amendments from Sen. Orrin Hatch that would have the bill conform to current federal law prohibiting direct abortion funding.

Hatch amendment 355 would make it so the Baucus bill "prohibits authorized or appropriated federal funds under this Mark from being used for elective abortions and plans that cover such abortions."

The otherwise party-line vote saw pro-abortion Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe side with Democrats against it and Sen. Kent Conrad of Noth Dakota join Republicans in supporting it.

"All I'm asking -- my gosh -- is for specific language in the bill that prohibits federal dollars from being used to fund abortions," Hatch said.

Pro-abortion Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan described Hatch's amendment to prohibit abortion funding as "insulting" to women.

During the debate, Sen. Max Baucus, the author of the health care bill the panel has under consideration, claimed his measure follows the federal Hyde amendment that has prohibited virtually all direct federal abortion funding since the 1970s.

"The mark makes it clear that no federal funds will be used for abortion. None. None. It's very clear," he said.

However, the Baucus bill opens the door to massive abortion funding.

According to National Right to Life legislative director Douglas Johnson, "The bill contains provisions that would send massive federal subsidies directly to both private insurance plans and government-chartered cooperatives that pay for elective abortion."

"In addition, the Baucus bill requires that a specific charge must be included in the premiums paid by those who enroll in such subsidized plans, of at least '$1 per enrollee, per month,' which amounts to a surcharge specifically for elective abortions," he said.

"The Baucus bill provides $6 billion in federal funds for the establishment of health insurance cooperatives, without any limitation on the use of these funds to pay for abortions or to subsidize plans that pay for elective abortions," he continued.

To fix these problems, pro-life senators Orrin Hatch of Utah and Mike Enzi of Wyoming had proposed a handful of amendments. They address abortion funding, state laws and the conscience rights of pro-life medical professionals who do not want to be forced to perform or refer for abortions.

Meanwhile, pro-life groups are also supporting amendments to fix the rationing components found in the Baucus health care "reform" measure.

ACTION: Contact members of the Senate Finance Committee and express your disappointment that the Hatch amendments were defeated. You can find members of the panel here. Related web sites:
National Right to Life -

Senate Committee Defeats Amendment to Stop Financial Incentive for Rationing

by Steven Ertelt Editor
October 1, 2009

Add to My Yahoo!Email RSS Print

Washington, DC ( -- Members of the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday not only turned back an amendment to stop abortion funding, but they defeated an amendment to stop rationing as well. They rejected, on a party-line vote, an amendment to eliminate the rationing components of the Baucus health care bill.

Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican, brought the amendment out of a concern, shared by pro-life groups, that one provision of the measure penalizes Medicare doctors who provide higher levels of medical treatment to senior citizens.

Kyl and Senator Pat Roberts, a pro-life Kansas Republican, sponsored the change.

The amendment would have removed a provision that establishes that, for at least five years, Medicare physicians who authorize treatments for their patients that wind up in the top 10% of per capita cost for a year will lose 5% of their total Medicare reimbursements for that year.

Pro-life advocates say the provision means that all doctors treating older people will constantly be driven to try to order the least expensive tests and treatments for fear that they will be caught in that top 10%.

“Last night’s vote in the Senate Finance Committee should put America’s senior citizens on alert," medical ethics attorney Burke Balch of National Right to Life, told today. "If death spiral provision actually becomes law, their Medicare providers will start a race to the bottom to avoid being captured in the top ten percent."

“Older Americans who rely on Medicare would be faced with fewer and less-effective treatment options. This is among the most insidious provisions for rationing in any of the health care bills before Congress," he continued.

Balch says the provision, on pages 80-81 of the "Chairman’s Mark," drives all doctors treating older people to try to order fewer and less effective tests and treatments for fear that they will be caught in that top 10%.

"It is noteworthy that this feature operates independently of any considerations of quality,

efficiency, or waste - if you authorize enough treatment for your patients, however necessary and appropriate it may be, you are in danger of being one of the 1 in 10 doctors who will be penalized each year," Balch said.

"Moreover, it creates a moving target - by definition, there will ALWAYS be a top 10%, no matter how far down the total amount of money spent on Medicare is driven," he continued.

Although all of the Democrats on the panel voted against the amendment,

Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota did so for budgetary reasons.

He said during the debate that he shared the concerns of pro-life groups and Senators Kyl and Roberts.

"As I try to put my feet in the shoes of a doctor, I don't know how you separate out overutilization that is really overutilization," he said. "There is no way of knowing when you go through the year, what you are going to do at the end of the year."

He warned that the provision could come back to "haunt us" in a few years.

David O'Steen, the executive director of the National Right to Life Committee, previously warned pro-life advocates about the provision in the Baucus bill.

“This provision creates a cruel death spiral. By financially penalizing Medicare providers, the Baucus bill sets up the cruelest and most effective way to ensure that doctors are forced to ration care for their senior citizen patients,” he said.

“It's like a game of musical chairs, in which there is always one chair less than the number of players – so no matter how fast the contestants run, someone will always be the loser when the music stops,” O’Steen added.

O'Steen says the incentive the provision creates is purely cost-driven, without any balancing of benefit and that it will create a constant sense of uncertainty in doctors, since none can know in advance precisely what the cutoff for a given year will be -- resulting in still more pressure to limit treatment and diagnostic tests to the bare minimum.

Related web sites:National Right to Life -


Pro-Life Group Pans Baucus Bill, Launches New Ad on Abortion and Health Care

Washington, DC ( -- The national pro-life group Americans United for Life is panning the passage of the Baucus health care bill, the fifth piece of so-called reform legislation that promotes abortion. AUL is also preparing to launch tomorrow a new online ad that focuses on health care and abortion funding. A Senate committee passed the Baucus bill today on a largely partisan vote. Charmaine Yoest, the president of AUL, told that the panel "joined the four other committees with jurisdiction over health care reform in reporting out a bill that does not include explicit language excluding abortion funding and coverage." "In fact, the Baucus bill explicitly includes abortion funding and coverage," she said. "History has shown that unless legislation relating to health care reform includes language that expressly excludes abortion, courts and administrative agencies will interpret the legislation as including abortion." Full story at



Majority of Americans Oppose Pro-Abortion Health Care Reform as Senate Votes

Washington, DC ( -- As a Senate committee votes today on what is the fifth pro-abortion health care "reform bill," a new poll shows a majority of Americans are still opposed. The Senate Finance Committee is expected to approve the Baucus health care bill, which allows massive abortion funding. Although polling data has shown some movement in favor of the pro-abortion health care legislation pending in Congress, a new Rasmussen poll released today reveals opposition is holding steady. Just 44 percent of voters nationwide favor the health care reform bills, none of which contain limits like the Hyde amendment on abortion funding. That is down two percent from the 46 percent level of support Rasmussen showed earlier this month. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds 50 percent of Americans are opposed to the government-run health care plans. Currently, 23% strongly favor the legislative effort and 39% are strongly opposed, and intensity has favored opponents throughout the debate. Full story at
New Stem Cell Research Bill Could Promote Human Cloning, Destroying Embryos

Washington, DC ( -- President Barack Obama issued an executive order this year to force taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cell research that destroys human life. Now that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has issued the guidelines to implement that decision, a pro-cloning member of Congress wants to open the door further. Rep. Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, will soon introduce the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2009. DeGette, as the Washington Post did in a supportive weekend editorial, will likely tout the legislation as a was to codify, or make as permanent law, Obama's decision. That means a future pro-life president would not be able to undo the decision with another executive order. But, DeGette's measure will likely go further and "enhance" or promote human cloning and the destruction of human embryos. DeGette introduced a similar bill earlier this year that would allow NIH to invest in other kinds of research -- perhaps including so-called "therapeutic cloning," which is human cloning done for dubious research purposes. Otherwise known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, it is the kind of human cloning in which scientists purposefully create days-old human embryos -- unique human beings -- for the sole purpose of killing them for research. Full story at

Medical professionals are on the frontlines of battle in life issues. From abortion to assisted suicide and euthanasia and all issues in between we are challenged in the workplace to defend our beliefs and risk our employment. The National Association of Pro-life Nurses has been here for nurses since the beginning of this battle. Join with us in our efforts to protect those voices at




Obama Spokesman Falsely Claims Hyde Amendment Stops Abortion in Health Care


by Steven Ertelt Editor
October 7, 2009

Washington, DC ( -- White House spokesman Robert Gibbs mislead reporters today during his afternoon press briefing with a false claim that the Hyde amendment would prohibit taxpayer-funding of abortions in the Congressional health care bills. However, the long-standing law does not apply to the legislation.

CNS News reporter Fred Lucas asked Gibbs, the top spokesman for President Barack Obama, about a letter the Catholic bishops recently sent Congress pointing out that each of the current health care bills includes abortion subsidies.

"In a letter to senators last week the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said that, I'm quoting, 'So far the health-reform bills considered in committee, including the new Senate Finance Committee bill, have not met the president's challenge of barring the use of federal dollars for abortion,'" Lucas said. "Is that statement wrong?"

Gibbs replied, "Well, I don't want to get me into trouble at church, but I would mention there's a law that precludes the use of federal funds for abortion. That isn't going to be changed in these health care bills."

"There have been several amendments that would explicitly bar [federal funding for] abortions that were rejected," Lucas responded.

Gibbs replied, "Again, there's a fairly well-documented federal law that prevents it."

However, the fairly well-documented federal law is the Hyde amendment and it only applies to the Medicaid program that provides health care funds for poor Americans.

Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee called any attempt to paint the Hyde Amendment as a way to limit abortion funding in the health care bills a false portrayal.

"This is a dodge. The Hyde Amendment is not a permanent law, but merely a 'limitation amendment' that is patched on to the annual appropriations bill for Health and Human Services," Johnson says.

"H.R. 3200 directly appropriates massive subsidies for premiums and cost-sharing that would not flow through the HHS appropriations bill and thus would not be subject to the Hyde Amendment, even in the short term," he previously told

Also, should abortion advocates in Congress successfully overturn the Hyde amendment someday, its protections would fail even if it did cover the health care bills, Johnson explained.

"Thus, the only way to prevent H.R. 3200 from resulting in massive federal subsidies for elective abortion is to add Hyde-type language to the bill itself, just as Congress did when it created the SCHIP program in 1997," Johnson concludes. "Unless such an amendment is adopted, a vote for H.R. 3200 is a vote for tax-subsidized abortion on demand."

Johnson has said the same thing about the Senate health care bills, including the Kennedy and Baucus legislation.

So what law would guide abortion funding in these new health care programs?

The Capps Amendment, which a House committee added to HR 3200 this summer, would set forth the guidelines that Johnson says allow expansive abortion funding.

"Under the Capps Amendment, the Obama Administration would be explicitly authorized to pay for all abortions, from day one, under the big new 'public option' program," he tells "This means that a person would not be allowed to enroll in the new government plan unless he or she is willing to pay an additional premium to cover the cost of elective abortions -- in effect, an abortion surcharge."

"Indeed, the Capps Amendment explicitly requires that the federal official who runs the program must calculate the total cost of abortions and increase the premium for all enrollees enough to pay for them," he adds.

"The amendment specifies that this surcharge cannot be less than $12 per enrollee per year, but the amendment does not set an upper limit. Again, this premium specifically for elective abortions is not optional," he adds.

"Thus, under the Obama-backed bill, a federal agency would be writing checks to abortionists to pay for elective abortions, with funds drawn on a federal Treasury account," Johnson concludes. "This is 'government funding of abortion,' pure and simple."

"A vote for H.R. 3200 is indeed a vote for government funding of abortion on a huge scale," he says.

Related web sites:
National Right to Life -

Documentation -



Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:18:54 -0400
Subject: Heath Care Alert: Baucus Bill Passed!



October 13, 2009






Dear Friends,
Trick or Treatment? ObamaCare is getting closer to becoming a reality, and it is just as scary now as when we first unmasked this massive takeover of our health care system.
Today, the Senate Finance Committee passed its "conceptual" version of health care reform 14-9 with Senator Olympia Snowe (Maine), the only Republican supporter.
Included in Senator Max Baucus' (D-Montana) bill:

·                  There is language in the Baucus bill to "guard" against comparative effectiveness, but it will not protect the sick, disabled or elderly. ("Comparative effectiveness" is a scheme to set up a bureaucracy to decide what treatments will be covered, and who can get treated.) The bill still has provisions that provide financial incentives to ration treatment. Health care should not be reformed on the backs of the most vulnerable among us.


·                  In a dramatic departure from current law, which prohibits federal funds from being used for abortions except for rape, incest or the life of the mother, the Baucus bill will ensure that federal funds will be used to cover abortion. It creates an accounting scheme that permits taxpayer subsidies to go to private health plans that include abortion by designating private dollars as those spent on abortions and public dollars as non-abortion dollars.


·                  The Baucus bill requires individuals to purchase "government-approved" insurance or face harsh penalties or even jail time. As we have seen in Massachusetts, which already has individual mandates, insurance plans are often more expensive than many Americans can afford. Lower and middle-class Americans with adequate insurance will be fined if government agents decide their health plans don't satisfy government mandates. It also means that we could be forced to buy "government approved" insurance plans that fund objectionable medical procedures.


·                  It will increase taxes on the middle class. While the Congressional Budget Office has indicated that the bill would reduce the deficit by $81 billion over its first ten years, this is not absolute because they did not have full legislative language to determine the bill's impact. Non-partisan experts from the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office have admitted that the Baucus bill would raise taxes on those with incomes of under $250,000, while cutting seniors' Medicare Advantage benefits in half.

According to the Heritage Foundation, "Leaders in the House and Senate have a plan to pass President Barack Obama's sweeping health care plan by Thanksgiving without any significant participation by the American public."
Senators Harry Reid (D-Nevada), Max Baucus, Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut) and White House officials are now mashing the monster Health Education Labor and Pensions and Finance bills together. Then Senator Reid will move to proceed to H.R. 1586, regarding AIG bonuses, or some other completely different House tax measure and substitute in a health care bill that Americans will not even get to review. This bill may then pass the Senate. If it passes the Senate, the House could pass it without any changes to ensure the bill goes directly to President Obama.
Senator Reid, House Speaker Pelosi and President Obama have orchestrated the whole process to exclude us. We need your help now! Please call your Senators at 202-224-3121 today and tell them to oppose any health care legislation that excludes the voices of millions of Americans. This smoke and mirrors façade is good for a haunted house but not for our health!
Wendy Wright
Concerned Women for America







Concerned Women for America
Legislative Action Committee
1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005

Phone: (202) 488-7000
Fax: (202) 488-0806









This is what the White House wants to do to the poor in Appalachia, i.e., DESTROY their jobs!  This so sad! We had all better wake up to what Obama is doing to our country, and do everything that we can by speaking out to ensure that Obama's political goals are not reached; else, America is finished! - Gary L. Morella
Updated: 11:03 PM Oct 13, 2009

Voices Ring Out Regarding Mountaintop Mining

What may have been the biggest battle yet over mountaintop mining grew loud and strong throughout the coalfields and beyond Tuesday night.


Posted: 10:26 PM Oct 13, 2009
Reporter: Randy Yohe
Email Address:


Voices Heard


PIKEVILLE, Ky. (WSAZ) -- What may have been the biggest battle yet over mountaintop mining grew loud and strong throughout the coalfields and beyond Tuesday night.
The issue is a federal proposal to change the permitting process for surface mining. The fight is the environment versus the economy, with many forecasting doom if any change is made.


Pro surface mining folks say any change in what is now a streamlined process to get a permit will destroy coal mining in Appalachia. Those who support a tougher permitting process say our streams and our land will die without change.
A few thousand mostly pro-coal folks filled the Pikeville Expo Center, where the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said it wanted to hear from the public before deciding on an Obama Administration proposal to include more stream and land impact checks in granting permits to mine coal above ground.
The loud and united crowd cheered speakers one-by-one who basically said -- if the Corps bans, suspends or modifies the current permitting system -- jobs and prosperity in the coalfields will just end, period.
These hearings are underway in several states. The Corps said it will not make a decision on surface mining permits until it listens to all points of view. That decision may not come for several months.


Latest Comments

Posted by: Anonymous on Oct 14, 2009 at 01:13 AM

Something that everyone needs to remember when discussing the NWP 21 is the fact that banning these hollowfills will ban ALL mining, not just mountaintop removal. Underground mining operations use hollowfills just like contour mining and mountaintop removal operations. If there are no NWP 21's issued, then there are no coal mines period. We need to wake up and look towards our future. The forces behind this ban are wanting to ban ALL mining rather than just mountaintop removal.


Posted by: Anonymous on Oct 14, 2009 at 12:09 AM

I stand up beside the coal miners. And I also agree, there needs to be stiffer laws against damaging water supplies to the surrounding communities. I think there should be a common ground for all, and let these miners keep their jobs. If they shut down coal mines, it causes a ripple effect, not only will it affect coal jobs, it will effect every business in the smaller communities that depend on these miners' business. Plus you have bigger businesses that depend on the coal mines for parts, equipment, mechanics, etc. It will ruin this state.We do not have the means for any other alternative energy to over ride the coal, to heat our homes this winter. Someone is moving way too fast, and we will be the ones who suffer. Our grandfather, and great grandfathers were coal miners, some poeple, its in the family, and thats all we know. Why pick on just coal, when the timber companies are stripping our mountains too, for more developement, whether it be for commercial or residential.


Posted by: melissa on Oct 13, 2009 at 10:43 PM

the ones against mountain top remover are so wrong, what there doing is going to cost a lot of people their jobs if take away coal you have nothing here, how do you think you people get your electric. coal makes our day, tree huggers go away!!!













Dr. Russell Blaylock: Doctors Will be 'Drafted' Under Public Option

By Mel Bryant

This article is linked on Governor Palin's Facebook page:

A respected medical specialist has carefully reviewed the healthcare reform bill in the U.S. House, and he declares that it would amount to a virtual "draft" of doctors into the government's "public option" health insurance program.

Dr. Russell Blaylock, a renowned neurosurgeon, book author and editor of the Blaylock Wellness Report published by Newsmax, also warns that "death panels" could lead to the rationing of medical care to the elderly and a "violation of the Hippocratic Oath."

Read the full article here.

In related news, Senator Olympia Snowe (RINO - Maine) voted for the Baucus health care bill -- that's actually not a bill -- in the Senate Finance Committee vote today. The "bill" passed in 14-9 vote.

And Glenn Reynolds says, "Think of them as 'life' panels, because they’ll decide if you get to live!" in response to yesterday's news about possible health care rationing in Massachusetts.




Doctors Will be 'Drafted' Under Public Option


Monday, October 12, 2009 6:47 PM

By: Jim Meyers




A respected medical specialist has carefully reviewed the healthcare reform bill in the U.S. House, and he declares that it would amount to a virtual "draft" of doctors into the government's "public option" health insurance program.

Dr. Russell Blaylock, a renowned neurosurgeon, book author and editor of the Blaylock Wellness Report published by Newsmax, also warns that "death panels" could lead to the rationing of medical care to the elderly and a "violation of the Hippocratic Oath."

See Video: Dr. Russell Blaylock discusses the threats to quality medical care under Obamacare - Click Here Now

In an exclusive Newsmax interview, Dr. Blaylock points to other ominous provisions in the bill, HR 3200, which he says would:


·  Severely discourage the readmission of patients to a hospital after they have been treated, and punish doctors and hospitals if they do readmit them.


·  Require medical practitioners to document their dealings to the extent that they won't have enough time to adequately treat their patients.

·  Jeopardize the confidentiality of patients' medical records, including psychiatric reports.

The Senate's version of healthcare reform is slated to be voted on by the Finance Committee on Tuesday. But the House bill has already been approved by several committees and is sure to play a major role in any conference by the House and Senate to reconcile the bills those bodies pass.

Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella noted that under the House bill, physicians would be drafted into the public option, a provision Dr. Blaylock has earlier called "conscription."

This bill "is virtually a draft because it says all physicians are automatically in the public option unless they opt out, and the opt out mechanism will be later determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services," Dr. Blaylock said.

"Well, we don't know how difficult it will be for physicians to opt out. Will there be penalties, fines, taxes, etc.? Because that's all left up to the Secretary."

He added on that score: "One of the things that concerns the legal minds of this country is that any bill that contains arbitrary language can be interpreted after it's passed any way they want to. And in this bill, virtually every page gives arbitrary powers to the Secretary of Health and Human Services."

Blaylock warned that under the House bill, hospital readmissions will be very restricted.
"One of the things they targeted to save money was to punish hospitals and physicians if they readmit a patient within a month of them being treated in an emergency room," he said.

"The effect of that is going to be that doctors are not going to want to treat these patients, hospitals are not going to want to treat these patients. It's going to cost hospitals a considerable amount of money as well as the physicians in fines if a patient comes back readmitted.

"Now the people who are going to be readmitted are people with chronic illnesses, the elderly, the disabled. Those are the people who are going to have complications occur within that month period. And why should hospitals and physicians be punished for that?

"They're not going to want to treat these patients. They're going to want to refer them quickly to another facility. And that's one of the biggest problems we have, patients being bounced around."

Martella asked about a controversial provision in the bill for so-called end of life counseling, which critics have charged would set up "death panels."

"This caused a lot of controversy, on so-called death panels and whether this advanced healthcare planning was actually required," Dr. Blaylock said.

"But it says very specifically on pages 424 through 428 that these sessions will be part of the normal medical practice. Therefore it's not voluntary.

"So every patient of a certain age will have to undergo this counseling. And further, in really frightening language, this bill [stipulates] that the people doing the counseling will be specially trained and approved by the federal government. They'll supply films, brochures, pamphlets — the data the patients are being exposed to.

"If you look at a lot of this literature now, what it says is that these patients will be encouraged to end their life early rather than take extraordinary medical treatments.

"For instance, if you're 65, 70 years old and you have congestive heart failure, in their view you really should make the decision that you don't want any further treatment, that it would be best for you and your family.

"And if you couch it that way you can convince a lot of patients through guilt that they really shouldn't be spending the money that it's going to cost their family as well as the country at large. So this is a very dangerous precedent. This is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath...

"But then the health czar, Ezekiel Emanuel, has said that physicians are too obsessed with this Hippocratic Oath. And if you read his papers on this subject, he clearly states that the elderly should just make the decision that they don't want any further treatment and go ahead and meet their end.

"The Hastings Center that he writes for, and that he's on the advisory panel for, clearly [states] that patients need to just reject any kind of extraordinary healthcare, or just ordinary healthcare, and accept that they're going to die. To me that is under the definition of a death panel.

"If you look at the socialist countries, for instance National Socialist Germany and the Soviet Union, they had very similar policies. They just didn't treat these people."

Dr. Blaylock is also concerned about the huge amount of paperwork the bill would require from medical practitioners.

"Those of us who have practiced medicine for a lot of years know that in the last 15 years, progressively, there's been so many requirements for the reporting of virtually everything," he said.

"This bill expands it enormously, so that physicians are not going to have time to do patient care to the extent that they should. They're not going to be able to follow up on their post-graduation education or attend seminars, because they're going to spend time documenting everything.

"They have to document any interaction with any federal bureaucracy or any other entity that they contract with. They have to determine whether there's a fraud risk. They're fined if fraud is found later, even though they're just referring a patient to an outpatient facility. They have to do quality assessments continuously.

"Now that's going to cause doctors to spend enormous amounts of time documenting all this and I don't see how they can even do it. The paperwork is absolutely enormous."

Martella asked if that record-keeping would encroach on doctor-patient confidentiality.

"Certainly. Whether you use patient code, patient names, all that is to be determined later. None of that is spelled out in this bill. So it has the potential, particularly in regard to the financial records that have to be supplied, of putting at risk your financial data, your medical data, if you've seen a psychiatrist, if you've had any kind of infectious disease that you don't want anyone to know about."

Under the bill, "all this information is available to a lot of eyes at every level and all sorts of bureaucracies, and it can leak out."

See Video: Dr. Russell Blaylock discusses the threats to quality medical care under Obamacare
- Click Here Now





Russia to Peek at U.S. Nuke Sites

Plan would allow Russia to count American weapons, in most intrusive inspection progam U.S. has ever accepted

Russia and the United States have tentatively agreed to a weapons inspection program that would allow Russians to visit nuclear sites in America to count missiles and warheads. 

The plan, which Fox News has learned was agreed to in principle during negotiations, would constitute the most intrusive weapons inspection program the U.S. has ever accepted. 

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who met with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said publicly Tuesday that the two nations have made "considerable" progress toward reaching agreement on a new strategic arms treaty. 

The 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires in December and negotiators have been racing to reach agreement on a successor. 

Clinton said the U.S. would be as transparent as possible. 

"We want to ensure that every question that the Russian military or Russian government asks is answered," she said, calling missile defense "another area for deep cooperation between our countries." 

On another critical issue, Lavrov declared that it would be counterproductive to threaten Iran with more sanctions over its nuclear program -- as he resisted efforts by Clinton to win agreement for tougher measures should Iran fail to prove its program is peaceful. 

Clinton visited Moscow on her first trip since becoming America's top diplomat, in an effort to gauge Moscow's willingness to join the U.S. in imposing sanctions. 

Clinton said the U.S. agreed it was important to pursue diplomacy with Iran

"At the same time that we are very vigorously pursuing this track, we are aware that we might not be as successful as we need to be, so we have always looked at the potential of sanctions in the event we are not successful and cannot assure ourselves and others that Iran has decided not to pursue nuclear weapons," she said at a joint news conference. 

Iran insists it has the right to a full domestic nuclear enrichment program and maintains it is only for peaceful purposes, such as energy production. 

President Obama -- who visited Russia in July -- has vowed to "reset" U.S.-Russia relations. On Tuesday, Clinton apologized for missing that meeting because of a broken elbow. 

"But now both my elbow and our relationships are reset and we're moving forward, which I greatly welcome," she said. 

She was to meet with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev later Tuesday. 








Callers Weigh in on Unemployment


All of us know the economy hasn't come back.


Callers Weigh in on Unemployment

October 13, 2009


Listen To It! WMP | RealPlayer 
Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only -- Join Now!




RUSH: Quickly to the phones, to Port Huron, Michigan.  Mike, I'm glad you called, sir.  Welcome to the EIB Network.

CALLER:  Thank you, Rush.  And let me say real quick: It is an honor.  I'm a trucker, and when I can't get you, I listen to other radio stations, and they all envy you.  I tell them the reason they don't have your audience and the respect that you have is because their message is not what the majority of America wants to hear.  And that quickly being said, like I said I am a trucker, and the economy, any signs of recovery, we would know it.  Right now should be our busiest time of the year, with Thanksgiving, Christmas, Halloween, school started back up. We are not getting frieght.  And the truckers ain't truckin', there ain't nothing moving.  The only thing that doesn't move without a truck is Wall Street and that's a hoax by itself.  

RUSH: Well, there's a reason why Wall Street's got some action and you just nailed it.  Wall Street right now is the only place where there's a real economy going on.  That's the wrong way to put it.  The real economy is not worth investing in right now.  There aren't any. It's 10% unemployment.  The real economy... People are putting their money into municipal bonds right now and in equities -- and gold, by the way; big time into gold.  But people are not investing in Main Street.  Remember the liberals old lament, "Well, what's good for Wall Street is not good for Main Street"? That's never been more true than it is now.  I'm not berating people putting money in Wall Street, the markets at work hear, but what you're telling us is what you're telling us: You ain't trucking. You got no freight.

CALLER:  I tell you, you go to any truck stop and you just is he how many truck are sitting there, and you talk to any driver. If there was anything out there -- it's like my wife says -- we're on the front line.  If there was any sign of a recovery, we would know it.

RUSH:  Yeah. Amen that.

CALLER: (laughs) And like I said --

RUSH: The idea, the idea that there can be a recovery with no job creation is just absurd. "Recovery" is what?  Commerce taking place! Seventy-five, 80% of the economy is consumerism.  Consumption out there! People buying stuff.  And for people to buy stuff, it has to be on the shelf in the stores.  And how does it get there?  Guys like Mike and his truckers over the road, trains, in some cases airplanes.  Yeah, there's a three-year lag time for jobs.  Well, how in the hell...? This is just pure baloney designed to make the Obama administration look benevolence and good and successful and so forth, when it's all senseless.  It all defies logic.  

Now, here is a telling story within the story.  This is a Reuters story, and it was published today.  "U.S. Home Rescue Plan Delaying, Not Solving Crisis." There's a telling story within this story.  After describing the macro-failure of Obama's bill that claimed to help people who can't afford their home to keep their home, this Reuters story tells the story of an individual that tried to get help from our president and got slapped down.  It's a teachable moment.  "Within weeks of taking office, U.S. President Barack Obama rode to the rescue of homeowners resigned to financial ruin.  Obama, grappling with the worst U.S. housing crisis since the Great Depression, pledged to help as many as 9 million families keep their homes by reworking their mortgages."  

Yes, he made that pledge.  He didn't live up to it.  He failed.  "Eight months later, the plan is plagued by delays, red tape and, some critics say, a reluctance by banks to do their part. Just 17 percent of eligible borrowers have had their loans modified and monthly payments cut. Hardly any have been given a cut in the amount they owe on homes which are now worth less.  That means many successful applicants are left with loans that they still will not be able to afford in the long run. So instead of resolving the housing crisis that pushed the U.S. economy into recession, America may be prolonging it and, in the process, stunting the global recovery."  So how is that hope and change working for you?  

We're on the verge, we got the media breathlessly watching the Senate Finance Committee vote on nationalizing health care, and we've got a story today on how a simple little program failed! Remember how they botched cash for clunkers and delayed any genuine recovery in the auto industry.  Now we've got this little program that had all these wonderful intentions. Why, to help poor people whose houses had been destroyed, value-wise, with the plunge in the economy!  "Wow, we don't want to foreclose on them," Obama said. "We want to find a way to have them keep their homes."  Just 17% have had their loans modified.  Instead of resolving the housing crisis, America may be prolonging it by not just letting the market work.  The market will take care of this, but if you phony...

It's like the poor people in Michigan.  Okay, give 'em whatever they're going to get from $15 million in stimulus.  But that's eventually going to dry up.  And then what do they do?  They need work.  They need jobs, a steady source of income that results from their work.  Okay, so pass out some help for a mortgage.  But it's going to end someday.  You can't pay everybody's mortgage forever, and then what do these people do?  So we're just delaying the inevitable -- and in the process of the delay, we're making the whole problem worse and we're deepening it, because we are delaying the market correction which will automatically happen if you just get out of the way and let it.  But these are central planners.  They know better than you.  They know what kind of car you ought to drive. They know what kind of health insurance you ought to have.

They know what kind of doctor you ought to see. They know what tests you ought to get and what tests you shouldn't get! They know everything. They know which vaccine you should take.  They know everything better than you do, and they get their hands on these things and they screw it up every time.  They have screwed up the Great Society.  They screwed up the War on Poverty.  Poverty has won!  It's time to declare a winner.  Poverty is winning and it's getting worse, after how many trillions that have been spent on it? 




RUSH: Here's Mary in West Palm Beach, Florida.  Great to have you on the EIB Network.  Hello.

CALLER:  Hi, Rush.  How are you?

RUSH:  Just fine.  Thank you.

CALLER:  Okay, I talked with the screener, and what we've got here is a money supply, a frozen money supply.  I'm an economist, and you're absolutely right, everything you said, and you can't have an end to this recession with an increasing unemployment or if it's staying high with continued foreclosures, increasing bankruptcies, increasing your small business, and the other thing would be that our companies, the major companies have been working gimmicks out there using a government tax cut to show a positive flow.  It's not much but it's enough to make everybody go, "Oh, fantastic."

RUSH:  Wait, wait.  What company is showing positive growth?

CALLER:  Oh, gosh, it was on the other day, and they were showing how it had used the government tax cut to have a positive spin on their numbers, and I can't tell you the name of it.  It was in the morning show and we just don't have the money.  You need money -- the velocity of money has to keep turning over and over, and we have stagnated it and it's frozen.  Any time government is involved the multiplier effect kicks in and the government decreases the money supply.  If the government is involved in handing out money you can kiss it good-bye.  You need it in your small businesses, you need it in your banks loaning money, and it's not happening.

RUSH:  All of what she says is true, and the point about money being frozen, not turning over, changing hands and so forth, one of the reasons is the money supply is way up, but there's less and less of it circulating in the private sector.  It's all in the hands of government, and it's being spend by them.  There was a story in the Wall Street Journal, I think it was in yesterday's stack, I didn't have a chance to get to it, but I remember enough of it.  The Wall Street Journal was very happy that the Obama administration's finally figuring out here that the job situation is serious.  And the Obama administration has floated something that they were talking about during the campaign and then shortly after President Obama was inaugurated, and it's this.  A $3,000 tax credit or cut for every employee hired.  Now, it's good that the administration is starting to float around the idea of tax cuts, and, you know, I don't want to sit here and besmirch tax cuts, but this is not why people hire people.  They hire people 'cause they have work that needs to be done.  

To say that somebody's going to go out and spend whatever it's going to cost to hire somebody, plus the benefit package, health care, and all that, for $3,000 tax break?  When sales are down?  It just isn't going to happen.  If you're gonna cut taxes, cut their income tax!  Don't get tax credit stuff.  Cut their income, corporate tax, small business tax, whatever it is, reduce the cost of doing business that is slapped on them by the government.  Now, the Obama administration is not going to do this because they don't want that kind of independence and freedom and liberty.  What they want, at the end of the day, is if enough businesses take this deal, to be able to say, Obama created jobs, Obama created jobs, came up with this big deal, give every business three grand essentially for every new hire.  

That's like a Band-Aid.  It's not addressing the problem.  And the Wall Street Journal piece on this goes on and on and on in greater detail about what ought to be done with businesses and hiring and so forth.  And clearly what needs to happen is there needs to be an atmosphere, there needs to be a climate, if you will, of growth, opportunity, in the market.  People need to feel confident that they can invest in their business, hire new people or do whatever.  And right now they just don't have it.  People in business are not stupid.  They know what the cost of doing business is.  They can see what's coming down the pike with health care.  They can see cap and trade coming at them.  They can see new income taxes coming when the Bush tax cuts sunset.  Folks, we're in the crosshairs, and every gun the government has is aimed at us.





Read the Background Material...


The Business Insider: At 10% Unemployment America Still Doesn't Have Enough Workers
Forbes: When Work Doesn't Pay For The Middle Class
MarketWatch: Lost Jobs Won't Return Until 2012 - Economist Poll
AP: Survey: Most Economists See Recovery Beginning
Reuters: Home Rescue Plan Delaying, Not Solving Crisis
Wall Street Journal: Job Creation 101



Snowe Votes Yes on Baucus Bill Tax Increases and Medicare Cuts


Snowe is a joke. Obama is a disaster. On to fascism.


Snowe Votes Yes on Baucus Bill Tax Increases and Medicare Cuts

October 13, 2009


Listen To It! WMP | RealPlayer 
Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only -- Join Now!




RUSH:  Well, the State-Controlled Media is just over the top here, folks.  They can't believe it.  News flash, news alert, "Republican Olympia Snowe has announced that she will vote for the Baucus bill," surprise, surprise, oh, goody goody goody.  This is the same Republican, Olympia Snowe, who says the party left her, that she didn't leave the Republican Party, that she is a fiscal conservative.  Olympia Snowe is a predictable joke.  She has voted for all of Obama's big spending radical agenda.  If the Republicans had any intelligence not only would they vote "no" on the Baucus bill, they wouldn't even show up for the vote.  The Republicans have no business helping this thing get passed, the Republicans have no business politically, I mean it's death for them to have any role whatsoever in this health care bill being passed.  They ought to not even show up.  I mean the committee had a bunch of meetings, Baucus committee, didn't even tell the Republicans the meetings were taking place, they ought not even show up and vote, even if they're going to vote "no," don't show up, don't get anywhere near this.

Greetings and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.  

I want to explain something I explained last week when I was talking to you about how the CBO, Congressional Budget Office, scored the Baucus bill and proclaimed, "Hey, it's actually going to reduce the deficit."  I explained this in great detail last week, and now the commentators on the chat shows have finally, once again, caught up with me and explained it themselves in the past couple of nights.  There are two factors here.  The first is that there was no legislation.  There was no bill.  Baucus had not completed the writing of the actual legislation that he submitted to the CBO.  What he submitted to them was a draft, and he had numbers and gimmicks in it designed to produce this exact result.  The CBO even said in their analysis that this is all subject to great change because they were dealing only with estimates.  The hard numbers were not in the draft that they scored.  So after Baucus got the favorable CBO report, then he went back to work and started writing the exact bill.  And Obama has not come out and said that he supports it 100%.  But it doesn't matter.  This is the framework for all of the little, bitty tiny radical things they're going to add into this each and every legislative session, after they get this big shell done.  

Now, the trick, in addition to presenting the CBO with a draft and not real legislation, the trick in the Baucus structure of the thing was this.  The plan does not get implemented until 2013.  Now, remember, the CBO forecasts ten years out on these things.  The plan doesn't get implemented until 2013.  But the taxes, the increase in taxes and the increased charges for health care will happen immediately.  And this is something I want all of you to know.  The tax increases that you're hearing about on health plans, insurance plans that started $8,000, go up to $21,000, those taxes will happen when Obama signs the bill.  So in theory, even though there's 10% unemployment, in theory they think they've got a great new source of revenue that's going to be coming in, with these new taxes that are going to be placed on health insurance plans.  Even from your employer.  Taxing benefits is essentially what this is, and that will happen immediately.  But the spending doesn't start for four years, 2013, after Obama theoretically gets reelected and therefore will not have to face the revolt that's sure to happen from people because he will already have won reelection.  This is the theme.  

So if the taxes and the new charges are implemented immediately and are in place for three years, and the plan doesn't get implemented for three years, well, of course they can say that it will produce a surplus in ten years because you'll have ten years of taxes and seven years of the new health care plan.  I think all that's bogus anyway.  I think the costs are going to skyrocket.  There's no way that this is going to be revenue neutral.  There is no way that it's not going to raise the deficit.  There's no way it's going to come in under budget.  I mean all of this is just absurd and they are playing games and gimmicks.  Nobody's going to read the bill.  Shut up and vote.  What about $400 billion in Medicare?  Shut up and vote.  What about all the new tax increases on the health plan?  Shut up and vote.  Well, what about all the end-of-life decisions that some government panel is going to be making?  Shut up and vote.  Did the Founding Fathers read the Constitution before the -- shut up and vote.  Did the Founding Fathers read the Declaration of Independence before they -- shut up and vote.  

That's the new mantra at the United States Congress, in the House and the Senate: shut up and vote.  Don't read it; don't ask any questions; just shut up and vote.  The Republicans in the Senate on this Finance Committee, the Baucus committee, ought to be nowhere near when this vote happens.  If they do show up, they should vote "no."  Snowe is going to vote yes. "Oh, wonderful, Olympia Snowe, we've got a bipartisanship, Mr. Limbaugh, we have bipartisanship and this means that Obama cannot be totally blamed.  Obama can't be totally blamed because now there's bipartisanship, Mr. Limbaugh.  This is how Congress is supposed to work.  This is how the wonderful nature of the US government is supposed to work, Mr. Limbaugh."  This voice, by the way, is the voice of the New Castrati, those who have lost all manhood, gonads, guts, and courage throughout our culture and our political system.  "That's right, Mr. Limbaugh, but it's necessary for the civility to return to the American political marketplace, Mr. Limbaugh, because now there's bipartisanship.  Olympia Snowe is voting with Obama."  Yeah, bipartisanship, got one Republican vote on the committee.  

Senator Blanche Lincoln, a Democrat, Arkansas, phony moderate, phony Blue Dog from Arkansas, a state that McCain won with 60%, is talking like she's a "yes" vote.  In the end she's a Democrat hack who is in Obama's back pocket.  Take the word Blue Dog out of it because at the end of the day they're still Democrats.  At the end of the day the Republicans do not have the votes to stop this.  The Republicans are not the obstacle to anything getting done here.  It's a shame that they aren't.  It's a shame that this whole thing is happening.  This is a disaster.  We are in the midst of a manmade disaster, the Barack Obama presidency.  This economy is a purposeful wreck, it is getting worse, there's no end in sight.  The very people who thought that he was going to reverse circumstances that made their lives bad or poor, the very people who thought that they were going to start getting theirs, the very people who thought that we're going to get rid of all the arguments and the partisanship, the little guy, the little guy who is always the supposed to beneficiary of liberal Democrat policies is getting creamed.  Fifty-two percent unemployment among young people. 




RUSH:  The media is going nuts.  Chyron graphics: "Awaiting Senate Finance Committee vote on health care bill!" (panting)  As though nobody knows what's going to happen?  What?  Olympia Snowe is gonna vote with the Democrats.  Are there going to be some Democrat defections?  You have Bill Nelson of Florida.  He's another phony moderate out there.  He looks like he's voting to kill Medicare and slash health care to senior seasons today as well, which is what we're all going to be voting on.  Kill Medicare and slash health care for senior citizens.  That's the essence of the Baucus bill.  There can be no other way.


RUSH: Port Charlotte, Florida, this is Bob.  Welcome to the program, sir.  Great to have you here.

CALLER:  Afternoon, Rush.  Pleasure to talk to you.  I'm so furious with Olympia Snowe today I could scream. 

RUSH:  I want to help out here.  I can understand the temptation to get mad, but why waste the energy when you knew what she was going to do in the first place?

CALLER:  Well, I would like to encourage every Republican to send money to defeat this woman the next time she's up for reelection, be it the Republican primary or the general election, because I'm sick of a Republican stabbing the party in the back at every opportunity.  She was only one of three Republicans to vote for that stupid stimulus bill, which has stimulated anything but the national debt.  She sat on that committee for two months watched every reasonable amendment defeated on a party line vote, watched every attempt at transparency defeated, watched every attempt to get a final scoring by CBO on this bill before it was passed defeated.  But yet she's still going to vote for it?  I'm sick of it, Rush.  I don't need a Republican like that in the party.

RUSH:  Join the club.  I mean, look, my brother, this is why I have been beseeching people to forget this moderate direction the Republican Party wants to go.  It's going to take us right to the direction of Olympia Snowe.

CALLER:  I mean what if the situation was the opposite, we have 60 Republicans in the Senate and there were 40 Democrats, she would be the lone Republican to mess things up.

RUSH:  Nope.  Nope.  Not the lone, not the lone, not the lone, not the lone.  McCain --

CALLER:  Well, maybe McCain.

RUSH:  If that were the case they would feel guilty about our majority.  Hey, Lindsey Graham's already gone south on cap and trade.

CALLER:  Yeah.

RUSH:  Lindsey Graham's out there talking about the new friendship he's got with John Kerry on this. 

CALLER:  She was only one of three Republicans to vote for the stimulus.

RUSH:  Yeah.

CALLER:  And that didn't teach her anything.  Where are the jobs, Olympia?  Show me the jobs.

RUSH:  Well, what she cares about every six years is voters in Maine, not voters in Florida.

CALLER:  Well, that's another whole story, Maine.  What's wrong with those people?  That was a part of the country that created the American Revolution.

RUSH:  I'll tell you what it's time for, Goldwater had it right, let's saw the state off and let it float out to sea. (laughing)

CALLER:  I don't know.  They need to look up their heritage, the people of Maine, and look at the effect that they had on the American Revolution, you know, and go back to their roots because somewhere along the way they've lost their way.

RUSH:  You're preaching to the choir here, my brother.

CALLER:  Jeez.

RUSH:  You're preaching to the choir, and there are millions, millions more Americans with you than you possibly know.  We just don't have enough votes in Congress right now to stop any of this.  That's the problem.  It's up to us. 



Okay, Charles in Ft. Lauderdale, two calls from Florida in a row, great to have you here, Charles.

CALLER:  Hey, Rush.  How you doing?

RUSH:  Fine, sir.  Thank you.

CALLER:  Yeah, I was calling with the interpretation of the New York Times, their mind-set on what it means to reduce health care costs from their point of view.

RUSH:  What is your interpretation?

CALLER:  Well, my interpretation is that this is going -- the increase in taxes, which you and I would call tax and spend, is going to reduce the health care costs for the government.

RUSH:  Are you supporting that?

CALLER:  Certainly not.  To me it's a horrible thing but you said your head was exploding because you read what you said were contradictory statements, that taxes were going to go up --

RUSH:  I think we lost him.  I never got my arms around this guy's point.  Was he talking about something I said in the first hour?  Well, it was the New York Times story where they said costs are going to go down and go up, or they contradicted themselves within two paragraphs. We're going to spend more but costs were going to go down was what they said.  I don't know how anybody with one half a brain -- I can get by with it, but I don't know how anybody with just half a brain can ever believe that the cost of anything the government's involved in is going to go down.  Look at all the times that McCain's Commerce Committee, "Well, cable guys are ripping people off out there, we're going to have legislation here that's going to reduce cable --" have your cable charges gone down, ever?  Yeah, if you drop some service.  The idea that, okay, we're going to raise taxes and that's going to make the government spend less?  The theory from the New York Times is the government has its own stash of money here, has it automatically, which it does because they have a printing press, and then the government's going to tax us more, which will give the government even more money, so the government outlays will theoretically be less.  That's the point they're trying to make.  It's as convoluted and nonsensical and ignorant economically as anything that you would see in a junior high school economic paper. 


RUSH: Ah, the Senate Finance Committee has passed the health care bill. Big news, 14-9.  Big whoop.  Big surprise.  On to fascism, folks





Read the Background Material...


AP: GOP's Snowe Will Vote for Democratic Health Bill
Mitch McConnell Statement on Finance Committee Proposal
Bloomberg: Senate Finance Panel Passes $829 Billion Health Plan
New York Times: Congress Is Split on Effort to Tax Costly Health Plans
Heritage Foundation: Health Care Bills: The Unknown Costs
Investor's Business Daily: $26,000 Question
American Thinker: Baucus Bill Offers Some Magical Cost Savings


What Are Liberals’ Broken Promises on Health Care Reform?


1)       There will be transparency in the law-making process. For the past month, the Senate Finance Committee has been debating health care. But, much to the surprise of many Americans, they haven’t been debating an actual bill. They have been debating and amending a 262-page description of health care reform. It’s essentially a summary of what liberals want the bill to look like, and no member of the Committee, or the public, has seen actual legislation. The legislation will likely not be available until the bill is debated on the floor.



2) The bill won't add a dime to the deficit. Since the Senate bill is yet to be written, there are no official cost estimates. However, initial estimates of a description of the bill (which is what the Finance Committee has been debating) by the Congressional Budget Office indicate the gross cost will be $829 billion. Independent analysis by The Lewin Group, a highly respected health care policy and management consulting firm, expects the House bill to run a $39 billion deficit in the first decade, and a $1 trillion deficit in the second decade.



3) If you like the coverage you have you can keep it. Liberals in Congress continue to demand the inclusion of a public plan, a new government run health plan to “compete” against private health insurance plans. The Lewin Group calculated the impact the House bill’s public plan would have on existing health insurance coverage. It found with a public plan:


·                  56 percent of Americans with employer-based coverage would lose their current coverage with the addition of a public plan.

·                  Of the estimated 172.5 million people with private health insurance, there would be a decline of 83.4 million people with private coverage.

·                  34 percent of the uninsured in America would still lack coverage.


4) The bill won't cut benefits for seniors. It is impossible to cut payments to Medicare Advantage plans without cutting benefits. The Congressional Budget Office director testified that Medicare benefits will be cut, meaning seniors' private options for their health care needs are at risk.


5) The bill won't raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000. Provisions in the House and Senate bill would lead to a tax increase regardless of income. In fact, of the folks hit by the House’s plans steep tax hikes, more than half fall in the bottom 60 percent of the income scale. Small businesses and low-income workers would be especially hit. In the Senate Finance Committee, amendments were offered that would have protected those below $250,000, and each one failed.

6) It will save American families $2500 a year. There has been no analysis to show that these bills would deliver these promised savings. In fact, mandates in the current bills would have the opposite effect, forcing many individuals to pay more money out-of-pocket, and compelling businesses to reduce wages, salaries, and job opportunities.

7) The government plan won't cover abortions or illegal immigrants. Amendments were offered in the House and Senate Committee mark-ups to clarify that abortion services would not be included and to ensure proper identification of citizenship were used in determining eligibility. Each of these amendments failed.




It is impossible to assess key promises made by President Obama and congressional leaders on whether these bills will rein in costs for families.

Americans' Right to Know Fix Health Care Policy


October 9, 2009

Congress's Health Care Reform Bills: The Unknown Costs

by Greg D'Angelo

WebMemo #2646


All five of the congressional committees charged with drafting health care legislation have completed their plans. The congressional leadership will soon consolidate these measures into single pieces of legislation for their respective bodies, and floor votes in both the House and Senate are expected soon.

What is yet unknown is the true cost of these bills. Given the rapid evolution of these measures, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)--Congress's official scorekeeper--has yet to issue a complete and final cost estimate.

Without such critical information, of course, it is impossible to assess key promises made by President Obama and congressional leaders on whether these bills will rein in costs for families, businesses, and government; not add a "dime to the deficit"; and not raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year.

The Role of the Congressional Budget Office

The main role of the CBO is to estimate (or "score") the budget costs of proposed legislation. It provides estimates of policy impacts that are related to the budget, decides whether proposed policies would affect federal government spending or revenues, and determines whether proposed legislation would impose mandates on either state or local governments or the private sector.

Upon request, the CBO can--and often does--provide supplemental information beyond the scope of its basic cost estimates.[1] Although the CBO provides many services for Congress, it does not encourage or discourage particular policy actions. The CBO's role is limited to ensuring that Congress has the best possible information--on budget impacts and related factors--to make policy decisions.

CBO scores are generally made public. Equally important, however, are the confidential, behind-the-scenes estimates that the CBO prepares for staff and Members during the process of developing legislation. While the massive House and Senate health bills were being drafted, many CBO estimates were likely developed and delivered behind the scenes to the majority staff on the relevant committees.

Knowledge Gaps

During the national debate over the Clinton health plan in 1994, the CBO published a comprehensive analysis of the President's proposal, including the financial impact, its budgetary treatment, the economic effects, and a detailed discussion of other key considerations.[2] In the current debate, the CBO has so far provided only partial and preliminary scores for some of the draft proposals, focusing almost exclusively on the budgetary impact and issues related to federal health care spending.[3]

But before lawmakers move further toward passing health care legislation, Congress and the American public need more information on its cost and as well as its economic impact.

The Senate HELP Bill


On June 15, the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) issued a preliminary analysis of the major coverage provisions in the draft Affordable Health Choices Act, more commonly known as the Kennedy-Dodd bill.[4] The initial CBO score caused sticker shock across the country, even among liberal congressional supporters.

The CBO concluded that the bill would add about $1.3 trillion in new federal spending over 10 years while increasing the federal deficit by roughly $1 trillion. At the time, the CBO cautioned that its estimates did not "represent a formal or complete cost estimate for the draft legislation." In addition to other caveats, the score focused solely on certain coverage provisions included in Title I of the draft, and the analysis was based on only discussions with committee staff and not a "full assessment of the legislative language that was released by the committee."

As a result, the early CBO score did not include the cost of core components of the proposal, such as the massive federal Medicaid expansion. That provision alone would add several hundred billion dollars to the price tag of the plan.

In July, Senate Democrats released updated legislation, along with another preliminary CBO score of the draft proposal.[5] The CBO then estimated that the bill would cost roughly $600 billion over 10 years, significantly lower than the previous score, primarily due to reductions in the size and scope of the subsidies offered in the legislation. But, like the previous CBO score, the updated estimate included only six years of full implementation and still excluded the roughly $500 billion cost of a federal Medicaid expansion.[6]

In a Senate hearing, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf testified that the Senate HELP bill would likely "add substantially to the long-term spending burden for health care on the federal government."[7] Despite the CBO's assessment, Senators passed the legislation out of committee, leaving the question of how to pay for legislation to the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over Medicare, Medicaid, and tax policy.

The House Tri-Committee Bill


On July 14, the CBO and JCT completed a preliminary analysis of the coverage provisions included in the America's Affordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3200). According to the analysis--which was also not based on actual legislative language--the House proposal would add more than $1.5 trillion in new federal spending over the next 10 years and would increase the federal deficit by about $1 trillion.[8]

The JCT then estimated that other tax provisions in the House bill would raise an additional $580 billion in revenues, mostly due to the "surtax" imposed on certain individuals and small businesses under the plan.[9]

On July 17, the CBO and JCT released a subsequent analysis finding that the bill would still increase the federal deficit by $239 billion in the first 10 years alone.[10] The estimate represented the net effect of the $1.042 trillion cost of the coverage provisions in the bill, the $219 billion in offsetting cuts in spending and other savings coming mainly from Medicare,[11] and the $583 billion in new revenues raised primarily from the surtax proposal.

The CBO cited several reasons why the proposal would not "bend the cost curve" down and health care costs would likely continue to grow rapidly. A clarifying letter issued by CBO concluded that "relative to current law, the proposal would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits during the decade beyond the current 10-year budget window."[12]

The Baucus Bill


On September 16, the CBO and JCT released a "preliminary assessment" of the Senate Finance Committee proposal. This initial score, like all the others to date, was not final or complete.[13] The estimates were based on specifications provided by committee staff, not the actual chairman's mark or the revisions later made to it, let alone full legislative text.

In its preliminary score, the CBO estimated that the Baucus proposal would cost $856 billion over 10 years. These costs would have been offset in part by revenues from an excise tax on high premium insurance plans and penalties paid by uninsured individuals and employers whose workers obtain a subsidy. Other budget savings were expected to come from cuts to Medicare Advantage and reductions in Medicare and Medicaid payments to hospitals and other health care providers.

Altogether, the CBO found the proposal could result in a net reduction in the federal deficit of $49 billion over 10 years. Through a qualitative assessment, the CBO also suggested that outside the traditional 10-year budget window, the net effect of the bill would probably be "continued reduction in federal budget deficits."

However, a major problem with the CBO score of the Baucus proposal is that the legislation would provide for only a one-year waiver of the reductions in Medicare payments to physicians that would otherwise automatically take effect under the "sustainable growth rate formula" in current law. Because the legislation is drafted in this manner, CBO is forced to assume that in future years Congress will allow those payment cuts to take effect, despite the fact that every year Congress intervenes to prevent that from happening.

The result is that CBO estimates that the new spending in the legislation will be offset in future years by substantial savings from lower Medicare payments to doctors. As former assistant CBO director Joseph Antos has warned, the estimates are assuming unrealistic actions taken by Congress in future years. In fact, says Antos, the bill is likely to add at least $270 billion to the federal deficit in the first 10 years.[14]

The latest estimate of the amended Baucus bill, released by the CBO on October 7, pegged the cost of the plan at roughly $900 billion over the next 10 years.[15] While the CBO score found that the bill would reduce the deficit by $81 billion over the same 10-year window, the CBO and JCT analysis was still preliminary because the amended proposal "has not yet been embodied in legislative language." And, as with the earlier version of the bill, serious concerns remain as to whether the predicted savings are realistic. Although the CBO suggested that the Baucus bill would potentially lead to continued reductions in the federal deficit, its assessment ends by saying that "those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty."

Americans' Right to Know

President Obama and congressional leaders who support his health reform agenda have pledged to pass health care legislation that reins in the growth in health care costs, does not add a dime to the deficit, and is fully paid for without raising taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year. Therefore, it is not enough for Congress to simply show that any spending increases are offset by spending reductions or revenue increases elsewhere. Congress must also take account of the trajectory of national health expenditures, both public and private, and how it might change under reform.

When the CBO completes its official estimates of the impact of Congress's health care legislation, it will likely be based on a merged product of proposals in both the House and Senate. The cost of the legislation will almost certainly become a major focal point of the debate. Beyond looking at the budgetary impact of the plan, the CBO should take a closer look at both the short-term and long-term impact of the legislation. With a final cost estimate in hand, the American people should also have a comprehensive assessment of the economic effects of the reform proposals--similar to the one produced by the CBO during the Clinton era--before any legislation moves forward to passage. Only then will Congress and the American people know whether the President and congressional leaders are likely to deliver on their many high-profile promises.

Greg D'Angelo is Policy Analyst in the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

[1]Donald B. Marron, "Understanding CBO Health Cost Estimates," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2298, July 15, 2009, at

[2]Congressional Budget Office, "An Analysis of the Administration's Health Proposal," February 1994, at
(October 7, 2009).

[3]Congressional Budget Office, "The Budgetary Treatment of Proposals to Change the Nation's Health Insurance System," May 27, 2009, at
(October 9, 2009). See also Congressional Budget Office, "Health Care Reform and the Federal Budget," June 16, 2009, at
(October 9, 2009).

[4]Congressional Budget Office, "Preliminary Analysis of Major Provisions Related to Health Insurance Coverage Under the Affordable Health Choices Act," June 15, 2009, at
(October 7, 2009).

[5]Congressional Budget Office, "A Preliminary Analysis of the HELP Committee's Health Insurance Coverage Provisions," July 2, 2009, at (October 9, 2009).

[6]Congressional Budget Office, "Supplemental Information on Potential Effects of the Affordable Health Choices Act," September 10, 2009, at
(October 9, 2009). See also Congressional Budget Office, "Likely Effects of Substantially Expanding Eligibility for Medicaid," July 7, 2009, at (October 9, 2009).

[7]Douglas Elmendorf, director, Congressional Budget Office, testimony before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate, July 8, 2009.

[8]Congressional Budget Office, "Preliminary Analysis of the Insurance Coverage Specifications Provided by the House Tri-Committee Group," July 14, 2009, at
(October 9, 2009).

[9]Joint Committee on Taxation, "Estimated Effects of the Revenue Provisions of H.R. 3200, the 'America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,'" JCX-31-09, July 14, 2009, at
(October 9, 2009); "Estimated Effects of the Chairman's Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to the Revenue Provisions of H.R. 3200, the 'America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,' Scheduled for Markup by the Committee on Ways and Means on July 16, 2009," JCX-33-09, July 16, 2009, at
(October 9, 2009).

[10]Congressional Budget Office, "Preliminary Analysis of America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009," July 17, 2009, at http://www.cbo
(October 9, 2009).

[11]For an initial analysis of the Medicare provisions see Congressional Budget Office, "Preliminary Estimate of the Effects on Direct Spending and Revenues of Division B, Titles I-VII and Section 1872, of the House Tri-Committee Health Reform Discussion Draft," July 8, 2009, at
(October 9, 2009).

[12]Congressional Budget Office, "Additional Information Regarding the Effects of Specifications in the America's Affordable Health Choices Act Pertaining to Health Insurance Coverage," July 26, 2009, at
(October 9, 2009).

[13]Congressional Budget Office, "Preliminary Analysis of Specifications for the Chairman's Mark of the America's Healthy Future Act," September 16, 2009, at
(October 9, 2009). See also Joint Committee on Taxation, "Estimated Revenue Effects of the Revenue Provisions Contained in the Chairman's Mark of the 'America's Healthy Future Act of 2009,' Scheduled for Markup by the Committee on Finance on September 22, 2009," September 16, 2009, at
(October 9, 2009).

[14]Press release, "The Cost of Health Reform," American Enterprise Institute, at (October 9, 2009).

[15]Congressional Budget Office, "Preliminary Analysis of Specifications for the Chairman's Mark of the America's Healthy Future Act, As Amended," Letter to the Honorable Max Baucus, October 7, 2009, at http://www.cbo.



Baucus Health Proposal

Click here for the complete text of Senator Baucus’ (D-MT) health proposal, entitled America’s Healthy Future Act.
Click here for amendments to the Baucus proposal that may be under consideration during the Senate Finance Committee markup process.
September 16, 2009 CBO Analysis of Baucus proposal.
September 22, 2009 CBO Analysis of Baucus proposal.
September 22, 2009 Letter to Senator Grassley (R-IA)
September 24, 2009 Scoring Implications of Modifications to the Chairman’s Mark.
October 11, 2009 America’s Health Insurance Plans report on the potential impact the Baucus proposal could have on the cost of private health coverage (conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP).













These stories are unbelievable, and indicative of the inmates running the asylum!




Matthew Whalen

N.Y. Eagle Scout, 17, barred from campus for 20 days — for keeping 2-inch pocketknife locked in a kit in his car
YOU DECIDE: Did Scout Receive Proper Punishment?
Board to Debate Fate of Scout, 6, Suspended for Utensil
FOX FORUM: The Menace of Overeager Cub Scouts