RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND SEXUAL RESPONSIBILITY

By Sarah Torres

President Barack Obama is considering granting a broader exemption to religious organizations from rules that require health insurance issuers to provide women with free contraceptives – including those which cause early abortions – sterilizations and related education and counseling, all of which are prohibited by the Catholic Church.  Catholic Belmont Abbey College is suing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) over the rule, and more than 18 Catholic colleges and groups have written HHS protesting the rule.  Many Protestant groups can also be expected to object to the mandate because of their objection to contraceptives which cause early abortions.

The current rule, implementing Obamacare, exempts religious organizations whose purpose is the inculcation of religious values and that employ and serve primarily persons who share those religious beliefs.  The organization must also be non-profit as defined by the Internal Revenue Code.

Religious hospitals, charitable service organizations, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, adoption agencies and colleges are not exempted under the rule.

For most religious organizations, the inculcation of religious values is only one purpose, and many of them employ and serve people who do not share their beliefs.  As the Becket Fund points out, religious hospitals, charitable service organizations, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, adoption agencies and colleges have a long history of feeding the hungry, educating children, providing medical care in hospitals, and providing other much-needed social services to those who need them most.

Without a true exemption for religious organizations, the rule violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.  Religious groups’ refusal to support contraceptives, including abortifacients, and related counseling, constitutes a religious exercise.

The rule also violates religious organizations’ First Amendment freedom of speech rights by forcing them to pay for education and counseling that conflicts with their religious beliefs and teachings against pre-marital sex, contraception, sterilization and abortion.

“A monk at Belmont Abbey may preach on Sunday that pre-marital sex, contraception, and abortions are immoral, but on Monday, the government forces him to pay for students to receive the very drugs and procedures he denounced,” says Hannah Smith, Senior Legal Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which represents Belmont.

The penalty for non-compliance – heavy yearly fines and a prohibition on offering health plans altogether – would put religious groups at such a competitive disadvantage to attract sufficient staff and students that they could be forced to close, says the Becket Fund, leaving many of the poor without needed services.

The New York Times reports that Democrats in Congress object to broadening the exemption, saying it would keep contraception out of reach for millions of women.  NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan has said, “Birth control is essential for women’s health,” according to the Washington Times.

Even if free contraceptives are essential to women’s health, obtaining them does not depend on forcing religious groups to provide them against their sincerely held moral convictions.  Those who truly cannot afford contraceptives can either obtain them at family planning clinics funded by Title X of the Public Health Service Act or move to a non-objecting employer or college.

All employers, whether operating for profit or not, and whether or not they serve or employ people who share their religious beliefs, have a Constitutional right to the exercise of their religion unburdened by the government.  Insurance companies have a right not to offer such coverage, and individuals have the right not to enroll in such coverage.

ObamaCare Repeal Passes House

On the one year anniversary of Senator Scott Brown's stunning upset victory in a U.S.Senate race, and just three weeks after being sworn in, the new Republican House majority passed a bill to completely repeal ObamaCare. The vote was 245 - 189, a stinging and stunning rebuke of the House Democrats who passed this bill by the narrowest of margins just 9 month ago.


Claims that this vote are symbolic are empty claims - this is a very important vote that signals that the ObamaCare debate is far from over. The Unconstitutional Mandate cannot stand, and more than half of all states are suing to escape the mandates. Also, Doctors know the bill will harm their patients, their ability to do their jobs, and their income, in a survey 65% said it would worsen care. The taxes embedded in the bill, needed to pay for the trillions in extra spending the new Obamacare entitlements create, are job-destroying (the Democrats insisted that 'job-killing' was too graphic apparently, so the Republicans came back with a new way to say the same thing - job-destroying).

Then the inherent corruption that comes from political control of a large slice of the economy:

Gohmert, who brought a copy of the health care law with him to the event, made some jabs, accusing the administration of "crony capitalism" through the granting of health care waivers. "If you're a friend of the administration, you get a waiver, and it will cut your costs dramatically," Gohmert said. "If you're not a friend, you don't get the waiver. You won't compete with the friends of Obama. You'll go out of business. Government shouldn't have that kind of power. ... Crony capitalism has got to stop."

Obamacare is an over-reaching, unaffordable, unconstitutional mess. We desperately need to repeal this bad bill and start over.

Eric Cantor is right to insist on the Senate taking up this bill and having a vote:

“If Harry Reid is so confident that the repeal vote should die in the Senate then he should bring it up for a vote if he’s so confident he’s got the votes,” Cantor said Tuesday.

What is Senator Harry Reid afraid of, the will of the people? Reid will attempt to block a vote in the Senate, but Senator Mitch McConnell has promised a vote and he's got 47 other Republicans who can help fight to make it happen.

The Baghdad Bob's of the Democrat party can keep insisting that ObamaCare is a 'done deal', but they are wrong - Resistance is Inevitable. They say this because they have paid a stiff political price for doing something the American people rejected and they don't this
Crown jewel of socialism to be undone.

The Republicans need to not give up the fight on this. They need to continue to make the case about how and why ObamaCare is wrong for America, how is harms our economy, robs our freedom, takes away important choices, makes healthcare less - not more - affordable, and bankrupts state and Federal treasuries. And it doesn't hurt to have a debate that ends up making Democrats spout off ignorantly about the Constitution.

Here's what the Republican can and will do: Demand a Senate repeal vote; de-fund ObamaCare regulation write-ups and agencies; repeal the individual mandates; repeal the taxes in ObamaCare - the tanning salon, medical device, payroll taxes, etc.; free states who want to opt out. And on the committee front, investigate the political interference in Obamacare waivers. Rep Cantor has said Republicans would “do everything we can to delay and defund the provisions of the bill.” With $2.5 trillion in spending rollbacks coming down the pike, a lot will be 'on the table' and Obama cannot expect to get all he wants. There will also be bipartisan offers to 'fix' parts of the bill that are just egregious - like the infamous 1099 provisions. Abortion 'restrictions' that are phony and undermined the Hyde Amendment are going to get real in HR3, the no taxpayer funding for abortion act.

Eventually, Obamacare will be dismantled, and we can have confidence in that prediction because the bill and program is fundamentally flawed and unworkable. Obamacare is the biggest and most intrusive bill passed in our time and is based on the flawed controlling and corrupt mindset that believes Government action is superior to market behavior. It represents the dying gasp of socialistic thinking, thinking which has failed economy after economy in country after country.

You cannot control healthcare costs by doing things that harm cost-saving market-based actions and innovations; you cannot improve coverage by robbing $500 billion from medicare; you cannot reduce the deficit with trillions in new entitlement spending; you cannot keep our finances sound by imposing huge costs on states and on businesses and individuals.

All that is required for us to prevail in this fight is to continue to persist. This vote gives us confidence that the Republican leaders "get it" and will persist in overturning the ObamaCare monstrosity.

Demoncrats Poised to Lunge Left, Telling Pro-Life Dems and American Majority: Go to Hell! We're Aborting Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness

As the vote on the latest reincarnation of socialized heath care legislation approaches, it is as if the power hungry (seemingly demon possessed -- 'deem and pass' sounds like?) Democrat majority in the House is poised to lung left, telling Stupak's Pro-Life coalition of Democrat lawmakers and a majority of Americans: Go to Hell! We're aborting Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and you can't stop us.

In November, I trust that many of these leftists will find their careers in Congress aborted, and a well deserved but much too late term abortion that will be. It's about time these anti-life, anti-liberty, and anti-property legislators felt a bit of the pain they have caused, and will cause, the unborn and born alike across the Republic, which God and the Founding Fathers have entrusted to us to enjoy and preserve. If the Dems are successful in going against the People's will with health care "reform", then after November these leftist will experience how law is aborted. They'll learn how to spell R-E-P-E-A-L.

Please pray for America. Here are some current stories for your prayerful consideration.

Stupak vote key in health care overhaul

Nathan Hurst / Detroit News Washington Bureau

Last Updated: March 21. 2010 12:22PM

Washington -- In the end, the health care debate on Capitol Hill could come down to appeasing the pro-life Democrat from the tiny town of Menominee on Michigan's Upper Peninsula, Rep. Bart Stupak.

His firm hold-out for stronger language banning the use of federal funds for abortions has turned the Democrat's race for 216 votes in the House -- the magic number needed to pass the $940 billion legislation -- into a last-minute, nail-biting struggle for majority leaders...read more

Anti-Abortion Groups Counting on 'Pro-Life' Dems

By Lawrence D. Jones|Christian Post Reporter

The pro-life American majority, and hundreds of thousands of unborn children, are counting on the remaining self-labeled “pro-life” Democrats to hold firm for Sunday's historic House vote on health care, said the head of a leading anti-abortion group Saturday.

As a handful of self-labeled "pro-life" Democratic members of Congress announced their support for the current Health Care reform legislation, Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser insisted that any member of Congress who votes for the “pro-abortion” legislation can no longer call themselves “pro-life.”...read more

Democrat bigwig: We have votes for health care reform; GOP chief: No you don't!

BY Katie Nelson AND Helen Kennedy
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Sunday, March 21st 2010, 12:31 PM

Confident Democrats declared themselves on the verge of making history Sunday as they headed into the momentous and long-awaited vote to overhaul the nation's health care system.

But Republicans - and even some Democrats - questioned whether the House leaders had really managed to round up the 216 votes needed to pass the sweeping legislation....read more (participate in a one question online poll)

Congress, Catholics debate health care

The showdown over health care reform among Democrats on Capitol Hill is nothing compared to the showdown among American Catholics. Or is it?...read more

Orange County pro-lifers anxiously await heath care vote

Orange County Roman Catholic ExaminerRichard Sikorski
March 19, 12:06 PM

Passing of the Senate health care bill by the House is in doubt. Language that supports taxpayer funding of abortion is the problem....read more

ObamaCare, Senate version: Most Dishonest Bill Ever

There are many disgraces, big and small, substantive and process-wide, associated with the ObamaCare bill now in the Senate. This terrible Bill just passed a hurdle on a strict party-line vote 60-40.

But I will mention just one. The 1am Monday vote to proceed today meant that: A vote was held in the middle of the night; there were ZERO business days to review this bill; a 2,000 page bill was amended by back-room deals on a weekend and then RUSHED to the Senate floor with NOBODY reading the bill prior to voting.

ObamaCare becoming Stalingrad for Obama & Co.

Maybe Senator DeMint was wrong. ObamaCare isn't actually Obama's Waterloo, it's his Stalingrad.

Hitler made three big mistakes in 1942 fighting the Russians. First, he tried to do three things in the Russian South in the summer of 1942: Take Caucasus oil fields, take the black sea ports and take Stalingrad. He bit off more than he could chew. His 6th Army got bogged down in street fighting in Stalingrad, and a city that had a deadline to be taken in August, which slipped into October and then November, with the city not fully in his control. Then he underestimated the Russians, setting himself up for a trap. In November, the Russians under Genreal Zhukov counterattacked in a pincer movement and in a week were able to surround the German Army in Stalingrad. Hitler then made the third mistake that cost him the whole 6th Army - instead of having them try a breakout retreat, he forced them to hold their ground, as he didnt want to give up Stalingrad. But his Lufwaffe lacked the air superiority to supply the surrounded troops. He lost both the city and his army.

Far be it from me to make comparisons that invoke Godwin's Law, but President Obama and the Democrat leaders have made parallel mistakes this year to those made by German High Command in 1942: First, they were over-ambitious and put too much politically risky things on the plate. They went in three directions, instead of one consistent vector. The ambitious over-reach ignited a conservative reaction in Tea Parties, and pegged Obama as a left-liberal. The legistative division, in particular the cap-and-trade House vote in June, started to make the wheels fall off of Congressional discipline. Deadlines for legislative accomplishments have been blown, and the big-ticket legislative front - cap-and-trade, immigration amnesty, card check, big spending, ObamaCare - has had middling success, with only the "Stimulus" as the big ticket that has actually passed Obama's desk. Obama failed to "choose his battles."

Second, they underestimated the opposition, both disorganized and organized. They've insulted the "Teabaggers" and put Republicans they might have got on board bipartisan bills out in the cold, taking a very partisan approach simply because they felt the numbers insulate them. The failed to consider that an energized minority has powerful ability to shape, if not the final votes, at least the debate - as the August recess showed.

Now, they are on mistake number three: Holding on to the ObamaCare prize even as the legislative and lobbying street-fighting make it impossible to fully win a clean bill. Will they make it? Only yesterday, it seemed that maybe they had; they first tried a "Medicare buy-in" trial balloon, and that didn't work, and then, having given up finally on public option to win over Senator Lieberman, find that progressives are now off the reservation and calling for the bill to be killed. Oh, and Senator Nelson is still a "NO" too.

The bill without public option is the 'all-pain no-gain' version, as I mentioned three months back. That is why - even though the votes aren't really there - they are trying to put public option in. With it out, the liberals say stuff like: "I'll be D @ M N E D if I'm going to be forced to buy something that is costly and inefficient. " on HuffPost. The coup de grace may be Senator Burris being a 'no' vote if public option is excluded.

Obama's polling numbers are worse than ever, and the ObamaCare bill gets more and more unpopular. Must be something to do with the trillions it will tax and spend in the next decade. So trying to hold on to a bill for the sake of holding on to it could be the costliest and final mistake of a very mistake-prone first year for President Obama. A flawed reform will only energize and anger opponents, while at the same time demoralizing his own base who a defecting from the bill. Time has run out for Senator Reid's "A bill by Christmas" deadline.

The Bad Obamacare Bill should just be killed - kick it to January, get out a clean sheet, and do a tailored targeted bill that only does the minimum popular things. But Democrats will probably decide to throw good political capital after already-spent political capital in a desperate gamble of losing teams. Holding the ground didn't work in Stalingrad 1942 and it won't work here.

Hey Democrats, You're Screwed!.

ObamaCare Argumentorium

Via Right-wing nuthouse, four common arguments used to advance ObamaCare, and responses:

Discourse #1 - The "It's ObamaCare or the Horrible Status Quo" Argument

it’s not like the alternative non-government option (such as the status quo discussed above) is without huge, even worse problems of its own.

This is the logical fallacy of the False Choice. It’s either Status Quo or ObamaLosiCare?

Wrong! Here’ a simple “third way” that could be bipartisan:

1. Allow insurance purchased from any of 50 states - lower cost through more choices.
2. Medical tort reform - lower cost.
3. Address pre-existing conditions with regulations requiring acceptance of people under such conditions in insurance (also prevent insurance companies from dropping coverage) and a Government program (based on tax on insurance itself) to pay into a catastrophic health insurance plan for pre-existing situation.
4. Posted prices for all medical items - lower cost.
5. Individual / small business pooling program to lower cost. We could also try tax breaks to equalize individual vs company provided healthcare.
6. Expand health savings accounts so all health spending can be pre-tax. (related to #5)
7. Allow prescription drug importation.
8. All Medicaid/Medicare recipients can get their govt subsidy via a voucher for same amount for insurance program of their choice.

Understand - ANY system will have economic limits, and thus there will be imperfections. Do these things and see how it improves over the next 3 years. This is how REAL REFORM would work. If more/different is needed, iterate. Maybe this list needs tweaking,but the key - Fix what is broken without breaking what works - healthcare in the US is 85% okay and 15% broken and assuming it is the other way is wrong; the ‘idee fixe’ of going after ‘universal coverage’ (which will never happen) while ignoring that overall issue of cost, access and quality as a whole is folly.

ObamalosiCare is not REAL REFORM, it’s a Government takeover attempt. It will not make things better and is inferior to other alternatives.

Discourse #2 - It's a Rigged Market so Government control is better than industry control

“How can anyone defend a healthcare (or any other kind of) system that’s based on markets that are mostly non-competitive?”

Government over-regulation has made health sector markets non-competitive. Profit levels for insurance companies are less than 4%. Much of that Government regulation is indefensible, for example, silly mandates at various state levels that do nothing but make health insurance more expensive and less accessible. Often these are done for no reason other than some special interest got it in there - chiropractic care, acupunture, mental ‘welness’, etc. all drives up cost of health insurance. We should allow and have ‘bare bones insurance’ available, especially to young healthy individuals who cannot afford the premiums (and consitute a large portion of those opting out of health insurance entirely).

Discourse #3 - The Modern Age Requires Big Government

"[ in the 19th century] You would have next to no contact with any government."
Many people had plenty of contact with Govt back in 19th century, that they didnt desire, that's why they escaped to the US as immigrants.

"In 2009, you live in an single family home with about 5000 people living within that 100 acres."
Only in Manhattan do you find 50/acre densities ... come to Texas, you can get your own 100 acres outside of town for less than the price of a Manhattan condo.

" You can’t even shoot a gun"
Come to Texas. Concealed carry state.

"electricity, sewers, police and fire."
And a gazillion other things provided via the free market, private-sector economy. Electricity provided in the US mostly by private sector utilities, and other 'necessities' like food, telecom, housing, are largely private, with Govt mainly involved via redistributing in some sectors.

Govt is over-involved in 2 sectors of the economy: Education and healthcare. Curiously, those are the two sectors of the economy that suffer from an inability to improve cost-effectiveness and cost-efficiencies, despite the obvious opportunities due to the information revolution.

" You come in constant contact with government: speed limits, sales tax, gun licenses."
If that's all the Govt did, it could live off of less than 1% of our GDP.

Point well taken that urban Government is more involved than rural Govt, but there too you have only another 1-2% of GDP for sewer, trash, parks, police, etc. That's 'some' Government (and local Govt too, the less intrusive kind), not the Leviathan Government like we have now that is consuming and spending 27% of a very huge $13 trillion GDP.

The Leviathan Government has nothing to do with our daily interactions with Govt in order to live peacably together. What that Leviathan Government is (aside from about 20% for DoD) is a massive amount of wealth distribution, from young to old, from taxpayers to welfare-takers, from consumers to farmers, from those who work to those-who-have-a-friend-in-Congress, etc.

The idea that 'right-wing' America is 'anti-Government' ergo doesnt want local police is just a red herring and sophistry. The REAL issue is this: Do we want the 'limited but effective Government' that sticks to the sewer/police/protect-the-border basics, or do we want the Leviathan Government that does that AND takes on managing industries (banks, GM), healthcare, energy, etc. AND redistributes wealth massively.

The real dividing line is not Government vs no Government (pace the Somalia Red Herring), it's Redistributionist-Socialist Government vs Limited Government.

"Overall I’ll take 2009. Bring on healthcare reform."

While we all will take today over yesterday, the false choice here is that implies support for Redistributionist-Socialist Government over the Limited Government vision.

The size of Federal Government relative to economy was smaller in 2008 than in 1945, and it was fairly even from 1960s through until 2 years ago... now it has spiked up and Federal Govt/ GDP is higher now than in 60 years. Is that the "future"? Inevitably Big Government?

Why bring on a 1945-era style of Government control - like ObamaLosicare - instead of something more modern, grounded in market-based choice, and leveraging modern technology? In reality, ObamaLosiCare is a THROWBACK to the mindset of the post WWII British socialists. The whole push to 'single payer' is based on a mindset locked in paradigms that are out of date.

Didnt fall of USSR, and socialist economic basketcases warn us off that kind of path? If the future is Big Government, then the future will look much like the failed visions of Socialism Past.

Discourse #4 - Moral Outrage, and hard times requires Socialism

“Is it okay with you that working people, people who put in their 40 hours plus every week, can end up living in a box under a freeway”

It is absolutely NOT OKAY that millions have lost jobs under Obama and will be losing homes as well due to the economic mis-management of Obama and his fellow Democrats.

It is absolutely NOT OKAY that in ObamaLosiCare they are proposing a tax on millions of Americans, and a tax on businesses too, that will destroy jobs and hurt many.

It is absolutely NOT OKAY that in the process of putting this bill together, they are going to be hurting the current recipients of Medicaid and Medicare by straining massively the budgets of both, thereby making it harder to help those truly in need.

It is absolutely NOT OKAY that those in favor of ObamalosiCare are using faux moral outrage instead of defending a very flawed bill that will harm millions and head us towards bankrupcy.

ObamaCare, like acid on America's soul

America needs a shrink at Rick Moran's place got me going on ObamaCare. My thoughts:

“America still does have a soul”

The soul that is in our Constitution and our laws and culture has been eroded and has been under attack by 1960s leftists who disparage the pillars of American traditions, values and freedoms. The Obama agenda is rooted in the 1960s new left and is like acid poured on America’s soul.

“people with enough clout believe that being able to get decent care when you become sick or diseased is a right”

Such a belief (in the 'right' to healthcare) is an oxymoron. No economic good is a ‘right’. Such blather does injustice to the real issue and challenge, and is precisely why the blather polls better when its abstract than when its real and concrete. Economic goods have limits, and any government program that tries to ’solve’ the problem of market/cost-limited healthcare will replace it with bureaucratic limits (the road to ‘death panels’ and QALY ratings is paved with good intentions).

If society should provide healthcare to the level society can afford rather than an individual can afford, state it that way. Stating it as a ‘right’ is selling a promise that no Government program can possibly keep. For example, if healthcare is a ‘right’ than what right does the Government have dictating those terms of care - in qualified plans? What give Government the right to deny healthcare choices, including the choice NOT to take up health insurance? Why the heavy hand of Govt ready to fine and jail people for the ‘crime’ of not choosing what the Government dictates?

So in the end, they (the ObamaCare folks) are selling a lie. it has to be a lie, just based on iron laws of economics (it cant get fixed by renaming government-run healthcare into some euphemism, or hiding hundreds of billions of ‘doc fix’ costs in another bill). As people figure out that not only is it a lie - it has to be a lie - that support falls away.

After all, the old on Medicare are already on alert that they WILL will paying the price for ObamaCare through getting the screws applied. People have figured it out - Obama does not have a magic pixie dust solution to throw millions more into Government healthcare burden without it (a) costing a lot more (b) adding to the deficit (c) hurting those currently in Medicare etc. and (c) causing huge job-killing taxes, fees and regulation burdens on individuals and business. We know now that ALL of the above WILL happen.

But it’s worse than merely selling the lie and airbrushing limits. What’s worse than that even is that American rights and freedoms are being crushed left and right in this mad rush to turn more and more of the healthcare industry over to Government control. They are now asking Congress-critters “Say, is it Constitutional for the Federal Govt to force individuals to have health insurance?” Instead of the correct answer (”No, I guess not”) we now have videos of Congresscritters shrugging off Constitutionality … ah, and archiac scrap of paper barely of relevance to 21st century Governance.

That is the America-soul-killing thing.

As stated … “We are about to hand government an enormous amount of power along with the ability to control our lives in ways that can only dimly be glimpsed at this point.” … only glimpsed because this 2,000 page Godzilla of a bill is only the prelude to literally TENS OF THOUSANDS of pages of health care regulations that the DOZENS of bureaucracies will be writing up.

We will ‘accept’ it, the way we ‘accept’ gridlock rush hour traffic, the common cold, bad TV sitcoms, and the existence of endemic corruption in politics. “It’s just the way it is.” It will become an awful restriction on our freedom, an anchor on our economy, and a boon to much that is disreputable and base in politics (pandering, corruption, and self-interested taxpayer-raping-for-special-interests galore). But it will be like some ugly furniture that we cant seem to give away - and so it will stay.

… but it doesn’t HAVE to be that way. ObamaCare is NOT inevitable, even at this late hour. Only partisan blindness and this “idee fixe” of the Democrats that this is magic elixir for their majority (nope, its poison) keeps it going. Should the Dems pass it, Republicans will win back the House next year and the Senate and White House in 2012. And the Democrats will be discredited and tossed from power for another 10+ years. Perhaps they will realize that this Big Bad Bill is the wrong bill at the wrong time. Perhaps they will come back from the brink and do something appropriately incremental rather than a socialist rewrite of socialism… but who’m I kidding? Like the scorpion who stung the frog that carried him across the river and made them both drown - “It’s in their nature”.

ObamaCare bribes

What the bribes were to get Obamacare passed.

Veterinarian bribe in the Obamacare bill.

Dems rebranding Public Option, but its still govt-run healthcare

Democrats are aiming to have "Medicare for All", and are trying to revive the single-payer Trojan Horse known as Public Option by giving it a new name. Some reactions on the comments that make powerful arguments for how unrealistic and wrong-headed the concept is:

FLyer 574: I just love the quote that "Medicare is a public option." There's no option at all! You automatically are enrolled in Part A-Hospital and Part B-Medical. You have the right to opt out of Part B if you're still working, and your company insurance becomes your supplemental Duh!These fools—and I mean fools—don't know what they're doing. Shakepeare was right: "Full of sound and fury and signifying nothing" Oh yes, I'm a Senior, on Parts AB, and an insurance broker dealing with Seniors. Just for the record…

Medicare is NOT free. To get Part A-Hospital coverage, one must have 40 quarters of contribution, which was a portion of FICA taxes in a working lifetime. If you don't have 40 quarters of coverage, you pay nearly $400 per month for Part A. Part B is also NOT free. Currently, Medicare beneficiaries pay $96.40 per month (adjusted for income at the higher levels). That covers approximately 80% of Medical Expense, and the 20% is covered by a purchased Medicare Supplement. Unless of course, you have a Medicare Advantage plan which is subsidized by Mediare. Offering Medicare to all those that want it will be a horrendous expense, since no monies have been contributed to cover ir. Gee, where will that money come from? My 6 and 8 year old granddaughters? No, probably from my unborn great-grandchildren…and yours!

Rebranding PelosoiObamaRei dCare (PORC) as Medicare Part E is just pink lipstick on a fraudulent, flatulent, and frighteningly fascist pig of a plan that threatens to violate the rights of patients, doctors, business owners, and insurers on a massive scale.This massive dose of statism in medicine would induce grave waves of arrhythmia - inflation, price controls, lower quality, doctor shortages, waiting periods, and rationing. These disturbances would become so emotionally distressing to the American people that Alinsky-inspired statists — opportunists that they are — would be able to exploit each new “health care crisis” as another opportunity to inject another dose of statism into the system.Call Congress NOW and tell them to oppose this War of Choice on Choice in Medicine.Dr. Gregory GaramoniDoctors on Strike for Freedom in Medicine
http://www.doctorsonstrike .com

BY Wary Independent on 10/21/2009 at 11:59: TAXATION BY MISREPRESENTATI ON. 2010 can't come soon enough.

It was only a few weeks ago that Obama said that Medicare is going bankrupt. Now they want to put 300 million people on a bankrupt system?

judithod: Oh, yes, why not expand a government-run program that's running a deficit of $38 trillion and on the road to bankruptcy by 2017. Who elects these nincompoops?In his speech to Congress concerning his "plan," Obama stated, "The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that to to insurance companies. . . ."Can the same government that allowed this corruption to mushroom suddenly eliminate it? Inquiring minds want to know how and when!

Jam: Have they ever considered that some seniors might prefer to have the option of not taking medicare. I personally do not want IT and have never liked it because I think it is government intervention into my life. Yet, when I reach the age of retirement, I will be required to take it or not be allowed to get insurance. This takes away my freedom and eventually invades my privacy. I do not believe any one has ever challenged this. I have considered challenging it when I am REQUIRED to take MEDICARE OR HAVE NO INSURANCE. Why doesn't Congress give all of us a little more freedom. In addition to requiring insurance agencies to write policies for pre- existing conditions, why not ask them to stop requiring seniors to take medicare and just open it up to those who want it. Why should we be required to take medicare and have it automatically deducted from our social security yet still pay the full amount for social security as income? I would rather keep my present policy and not have it be affiliated with medicare.

House Dems want medicare for everyone except themselves.BY speedzone on 10/21/2009 at 12:35

Medicare only pays about half of the doctors bill now, causing many doctors to refuse Medicare patents, how do they expect it to get better upon expansion of the failed program . . . Duh!BY Pip on 10/21/2009 at 12:35

Talk about putting lipstick on a pig!!!!BY Roger Mac

Medical Coverage for all. Save little Timmy. Whatever you want to call it, asnwer this FIRST… How are you going to pay for it when the program is is meant to work with is ALREADY 37 TRILLION in the HOLE..?!?!?!?!?!?That is 15 times the national debt. wrap your small liberal minds around that first and then lets talk you to do this.BY TheTruth on 10/21/2009 at 13:04

I am 71 and on Medicare.I pay out of my pocket $3700 per year for Medicare Part A, Part B and the drug benefit. Medicare is NOT free - nothing is free in this world.When will Liberals learn this?BY Peter Stone on 10/21/2009 at 13:05

An important political negative of the public option concept has been the $500 million transfer from Medicare to fund the public option. This latest scam to rename the public option as a component of Medicare means the $500 million would appear to stay on the books in the Medicare program and the political hicky goes away. Regardless, current recipients of the Medicare program will be worse off.BY Dean Ferguson on 10/21/2009 at 13:17

Payment from Blue Cross/Blue Shield to an orthopedic surgeon for a total knee replacement is $1750. Medicare is $840. Medicaid is $260. This is supposed to cover at least one pre-op office visit, surgery and post op hospital care, and at least 2 follow up office visits. With the amortized cost of at least$100 for someone to walk into the office each time, how long to you think Dr.'s will work for next to nothing or lose money? How long would you?BY Richard Brown on 10/21/2009 at 13:36

If the Dems want to lower the cost of Health Care, eliminate the restrictions that interfere with health insurance competition across state lines. The Republicans have been saying that for months now, but are being ignored. We don't need another giant government bureacracy that will go bankrupt in a few decades. How about true market-based competiton?BY TALON on 10/21/2009 at 13:37

My take:

I can't understand why anyone would think this public option or Medicare Part "E" or whatever the heck they are calling it today would be a good idea. I just dont understand. "

Just understand this: IT'S A SCAM. There's is no way to do what they want without a crushing load of new taxes and spending.

They are rebranding and repackaging old idea - Single Payer - into new names like "Public Option". When people see the details, they turn it down. So the Dems and libs keep looking for new names and labels. Now it's "Medicare for All" on the assumption that Medicare for all is beloved by all. (But if that was so, why won't they let us opt out of it?)

There is no specific actual program in "Medicare for all", it's just a label given to the standard of care for those who need insurance. They have not explained how people pay for it. Do people pay their own way? Not the uninsured!

In the end, the cruel, crushing and evil parts of ObamaCare are the limits, mandates, taxes, rules, and rationing that are hidden in the 1500 page bill. They need to paper this over and hide the question "who pays? how?" Apparently, some think they can conscript healthy young uns into medicare as a way to 'save' medicare. Fools! The working young are ALREADY SUBSIDIZING MEDICARE VIA THEIR TAXES. I mean how badly do you want to screw Obama's best voting demographic? It's bad enough they are now losing millions of jobs and have life prospects worse than before, but now they are draftees in this war too?

Obamacare Baucus Accounting Trick

There was an ad on the other night for these classics books. Nice idea to have classic books like Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn" on your shelf, but the ad was for a book-of-the-month-club type deal, and they only told you the 'low price' of the first book - not the following books. Does anyone fall for that anymore?

In the same vein, the folks selling ObamaCare have done a job of back-loading and hiding the true cost of the huge ObamaCare bill. The Spectator's Philip Klein has exposed it with a neat graphic, where 90% of the cost of ObamaCare is backloaded to after 2014:

Baucus ObamaCare Bill Markup Update

SEN CORNYN'S UPDATE ON BAUCUS OBAMACARE BILL - bad news is, the train wreck is advancing down the track:

Rejected: Amendment To Preserve Seniors’ Medicare Advantage Plans

HATCH AMENDMENT: “This Amendment Would Strike The Medicare Advantage
Provisions Of The Chairman’s Mark If CBO Certifies That Beneficiaries
Currently Participating In The Medicare Advantage Program Will Lose
Plan Benefits when the Medicare Part C reductions are implemented by
the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services. CBO is required to make
this certification 3 months after the enactment of the health reform
bill.” (“Amendments Submitted To The Chairman's Mark: America's
Healthy Future Act Of 2009,” U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, P. 151)

Amendment Rejected 9-14

(Hatch Amendment #D7, Rejected 9-14; R 9-1; D 0-13, 9/23/09)

SEN. RON WYDEN (D-OR): “[Medicare Advantage Is] Essentially Access.
We’ve Been Hammered Under The Traditional Fee For Service Approach So
Without Good Quality Affordable Medicare Advantage We Simply Don’t
Have Access To Care For Seniors.” “Oregon has the highest percentage
of Medicare Advantage in the country, highest percentage by far. And
one of the things that we have learned over the years is that not all
Medicare Advantage is created equal. Oregon and Washington have good
quality efficient care and in our part of the country it’s a lifeline.
It’s essentially access. We’ve been hammered under the traditional fee
for service approach so without good quality affordable Medicare
Advantage we simply don’t have access to care for seniors.” (Finance
Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 9/23/09)

Rejected: Amendment To Provide Legislative Language And Price Tag
Before Voting

BUNNING AMENDMENT: “This Amendment Requires That Before The Finance
Committee Can Vote On Final Passage Of ‘America’s Healthy Future Act
Of 2009,’ The Legislative Language Must Be Publically Available On The
Finance Committee’s Website For At Least 72 Hours.” (“Amendments
Submitted To The Chairman's Mark: America's Healthy Future Act Of
2009,” U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, P. 279)

Amendment Rejected 11-12

(Bunning Amendment #C4, Rejected 11-12; R 10-0; D 1-12, 9/23/09)

CBO DIRECTOR DOUGLAS ELMENDORF: “A Formal Cost Estimate Would Require,
We Have Said This To People On The House And Senate Side, Would Really
Require Two Weeks Of Work By Us, Once A Package Is Settled. And That
May Seem Like A Long Time, But It - There Are A Lot Of Complications
In Doing This Right, As You Need It To Be Done And It Is The
Interaction Effects Among The Provisions, It Is Reading The
Legislative Language. Our official cost estimates are based on reading
of actual language, very complicated to write this language and to
interpret it correctly, and that often involves a certain amount of
iteration between us and the staff of the relevant committees. We also
need to develop a more complete budget presentation rather than just
the effects on the deficit, which is the way we have been summarizing
for you so far. So we’ve told all the people who’ve asked that it
will take us about two weeks to do a formal cost estimate after we
have a full bill, but as I said we can do a updated preliminary
analysis more quickly than that.” (Finance Committee, U.S. Senate,
Hearing, 9/22/09)

…

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): “CBO Scores Are Really Important.” “‘CBO
scores are really important,’ said Baucus, after members of the
Finance Committee decided to re-craft portions of its legislation
based on the CBO estimate.” (“Baucus To Chop $600 Billion From
Healthcare Bill,” The Hill, 6/17/09)

SEN. KENT CONRAD (D-ND): “With Respect To The Issue Of When Scoring
Might Be Available, Because This Is Obviously A Sensitive Matter, It
Is Critically Important That We Have Scoring Before A Final Vote Is
Cast On The Committee.” (Finance Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing,
9/22/09)

Rejected: Amendment To Stop “Gag Order”

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): “Maybe CMS Overstepped.” “I’m not going to get
into that letter, because that’s a whole separate issue. Maybe the law
was not properly executed. Maybe there’s a – maybe CMS overstepped. I
don't know.” (Finance Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 9/23/09)

SEN. JON KYL (R-AZ): “[A]n Example Of One Of The Most Heavy Handed,
Unconstitutional Actions That I Can Think Of That Our Federal
Government Has Ever Attempted to take against private citizens,
private organizations in this country because they disagree with the
administration with respect to its ideas on health care
reform.” (Finance Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 9/23/09)

SEN. PAT ROBERTS (R-KS): “This Is Not Right. This Is, Quite Frankly It
Smells Exactly Like Tough Hardball Chicago Politics Abridging The
First Amendment. If We’re Not Able To Pass This Amendment We Have
Reached A Very Dark Day Here On This Committee.” (Finance Committee,
U.S. Senate, Hearing, 9/23/09)

KYL AMENDMENT: “Amendment That Would Clarify That A Health Plan May,
Pursuant To Constitutional Rights Guaranteed By The First Amendment,
Express Its Views About Legislation Or Legislative
Proposals.” (Amendment To The Chairman’s Mark, “America’s Health
Future Act Of 2009,” U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, 9/23/09)

Amendment Rejected 10-13

(Kyl Amendment, Rejected 10-13; R 10-0; D 0-13, 9/23/09)

FLASHBACK:

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): “At The Urging Of Senate Finance Committee
Chairman Max Baucus (D‐Mont.) The Centers For Medicare & Medicaid
Services (CMS) Has Cracked Down On Insurance Compan[ies] … The CMS
Investigation Into The Beneficiary Letter Was Prompted By A Baucus
Request.” “At the urging of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max
Baucus (D‐Mont.) the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)
has cracked down on insurance company attempts to mislead and confuse
beneficiaries about how they would be affected by health care reform
legislation being crafted in the Finance Committee and other
congressional committees. The CMS investigation into the beneficiary
letter was prompted by a Baucus request for the agency to review the
insurance company’s tactics last week. Baucus condemned insurance
industry scare tactics and stressed that health reform legislation
will include significant improvements to the Medicare program that
will benefit seniors.” (Sen. Baucus, “At Baucus’ Urging, CMS Cracks
Down On Insurance Company Scare Tactics,” Press Release, 9/21/09)

Rejected: Amendment Prohibiting A Federal Rationing Board

KYL AMENDMENT: “The amendment would strike the following language from
the Medicare Commission in subtitle E of Title III: ‘By April 1,
2014, the Senate Finance Committee, along with the relevant House
committees, would be required to report out either the Commission’s
(or Secretary’s) proposal or an amended proposal that achieves the
same level of reductions in excess cost growth.’” (“Amendments
Submitted To The Chairman's Mark: America's Healthy Future Act Of
2009,” U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, P. 203)

Amendment Rejected 8-8

(Kyl Amendment D7, Appeal Ruling of the Chair Failed 8-8; R 8-0; D
0-8, 9/23/09)

Ruled Out Of Order: Medical Liability Reform Amendments

ENSIGN AMENDMENT: “The amendment will insert language in Title III,
Subtitle H of the Chairman‘s Mark to improve patient access to health
care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the
excessive burden the liability system places on the health care
delivery system.” (“Amendments Submitted To The Chairman's Mark:
America's Healthy Future Act Of 2009,” U.S. Senate, Finance Committee,
P. 184)

CORNYN AMENDMENT: “Any state receiving funding under Medicaid shall
enact a limit on total noneconomic damages against doctors and health
care facilities of one million dollars or less.” (“Amendments
Submitted To The Chairman's Mark: America's Healthy Future Act Of
2009,” U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, P. 210)

KYL AMENDMENT: “This amendment would limit noneconomic damages in a
civil medical liability lawsuit to $250,000 from any provider or
health care institution, not to exceed $500,000 from all providers and
health care institutions. It would also make each party liable only
for the amount of damages directly proportional to such party's
percentage of responsibility.” (“Amendments Submitted To The
Chairman's Mark: America's Healthy Future Act Of 2009,” U.S. Senate,
Finance Committee, P. 273)

Ruled Out Of Order

The Baucus Bill - Obamacare the sequel

Here is the summary from US Senate Finance Committee:

Beginning in 2013, all US citizens and legal residents would be required to purchase health insurance or have health coverage from an employer, through a public program (i.e., Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP), or through some other source that meets the minimum creditable coverage standard. Exemptions from the requirement would be allowed for religious objections consistent with those allowed under Medicare and for undocumented immigrants. Individuals who choose to keep the plan they have today would be deemed to have satisfied the requirement.

In other words - If you are an American citizen, you have to do what we say ... if you are an illegal alien, do what you want.

The bottom line is that where this mandate starts is where healthcare freedom ends: Out of this mandate, forcing Americans to buy what the Government dictates, flows bureaucratic definitions of acceptable coverage, care, and massive subsidies that shift money from almost everyone to almost everyone else. In the pursuit of the mythical bureaucratic solution to an intractable problem (of total health insurance), we hurt healthcare freedom, choice, innovation and quality.

There are ramp-ups in Medicaid, S-Chip and Medicare requirements, all to wrap more and more people in Government-run healthcare. It makes a broken system more broken.

Doggett's ObamaCare Pep Rally

An account of the Doggett "pep rally". Having been unable to do real townhalls without in effect getting an earful from vast numbers of citizens outraged by ObamaCare, the liberals have instead been reduced to running pep rallies of the faithful that attempt to exclude ObamaCare opponents.

This rally was organized by among others Democrat operative and ACORN activist Mike Litt, who pumped the rally up on facebook and elsewhere: "Together, we will show the strength of support for President Obama's three reform principles here in Central Texas!" The Obama campaign (now "Organizing for America"), ACORN and the DNC have organized this rally using the same 'astro-turf' techniques that they accuse their opponents of using, and which the DNC is doing elsewhere, like Washington state.

How did the rally go down? A first-hand report from a non-liberal who attended and then walked out mis-speech on Doggett:

You didn't miss a damned thing ... at Doggett's health care rally. That's exactly what it was, a pep rally and not a town hall meeting. ... The capacity of the church was 1,200 but, by the time we got in, at least 900 of the seats were already filled by the Obama faithful. The lineup of speakers spewed nothing but b.s. about how un-Christian it was to be opposed to universal health care for everybody. The preacher, Jim Rigby, kicked off the worship service, falling all over himself expressing how terrible it is for people of faith to, "....even consider how awful it is to profess Christ and ignore the plight of the poor."

Than an attorney, Geoff Tudor, painted himself as a destitute emigrant from California and a victim of the insurance industry. He has a pacemaker battery that is about to wear out and, without health care, will surely die.

Our embarrassment of a mayor, Lee Leffingwell, talked about what a wonderful job he had done promoting universal health care in line with all the other mayors in the United States.

And then it was time for Doggett. When he declared that he didn't care what his constituents had to say and that he had his mind made up and that, ".....he was going to vote his heart", I got up and walked out.

I couldn't stand to sit through any more of the fecal matter and there were a lot of us who didn't stay for even as long as I did. I decided that the best way I could show my dissent was to leave in the middle of Doggett's speech and, since I was on the front row of the balcony and three of my similar-minded friends were with me, we were not invisible in our expression of our point of view. I can't say it for sure but I doubt if any of us managed to sit through the whole thing.

It was awful but I'm glad I went because it reinforces my understanding of the lemmings that continue to worship our liberal leadership and makes me more determined to resist them.

I would ask this liberal Rev Rigby if "universal health care for everybody" extends to the unborn, to those whose husbands want to pull the plug on them, and to the possible future victims of Government rationing of healthcare. If the answer is no, then perhaps the good Reverend is on the wrong side of the issue.

What the liberals don't seem to get is that having a successful rally in a liberal stronghold like central Austin will mean nothing. Preaching to the converted won't win anyone else to their side of the argument, and it's not like they needed this to get their talking points out there. The Democrats already have the Congressional majority. They already have the megaphone of the White House. Yet that won't change the realities of our $9 trillion deficit estimate for Obama's terms and the cold hard reality that ObamaCare would add more tax-and-spend burden on top of that unaffordable amount.

Doggett's failure to hold his own in real townhalls, his failure to allay concerns of senior citizens about Medicare getting squeezed and care getting rationed, and his willingness to create cheerleading rallies instead is a retreat. Which means this: The "Summer of Patriots" was a success for American freedom.

Dogging Doggett - Saturday 8/29 rally event

The Congressional Democrats have tried a few tactics to get out their ObamaCare marketing without those pesky patriots asking pertinent ponderings, and Lloyd Doggett has been trying them all.

One tactic is phoning in the townhall - easy to put the protesters on 'mute' while you babble on ... Two friends of mine participated inlast night. Reports on Lloyd Doggett's tele-townhall held earlier this week are here and here.

The other tactic is to stack the meetings with your own supporters and tell only your side to show up. Doggett is trying that with a Healthcare rally on Saturday. Here is the event:

Congressman Doggett is hosting a health care rally on Saturday, August 29. We encourage citizens to go with thoughtful questions and discussion points.

What: Health Care Rally with Rep. Lloyd Doggett

When: Saturday, August 29, 2009 2:45 PM

Where: First United Methodist Church, 12th and Lavaca, Austin, TX 78701

Word has gotten out via the grapevine on both sides. If you want to be a part of the "Summer of Patriots", this may be a last chance to let Rep Doggett know what you think of ObamaCare.

Big Govt Agenda goes Clunkety Clunk

Another government program goes Clunkety Clunk - Cash for clunkers has been beset with missed deadlines, massive mis-estimate of demand (ended up spending 3 times the original program case), and car dealers left in the lurch for now with many getting no payments. Sure it's popular, it's a program to buy dollar bills for 3 dollars... But who'd a thunk a 'free lunch' could be so complicated? As one sarcastic commenter put it: 'I feel quite comfortable giving the government control over healthcare. What could go wrong?'

These kinds of mishaps help Obama sink further in polls, and forces the elites to dissect what is going wrong with Obama and his Hindenberg Obamacare, which they thought was a slam-dunk. Some say his misread his mandate: "the subterranian longing for racial expiation can hardly be confused (by rational people, anyway) as a longing for socialized medicine." Others talk of his inability to sell programs rather than himself. Nor does it help that Liberals are starting to notice the shady deals Obama engages in, and the Obamessiah sheen is wearing off.

Yet the fundamental issue is simple: It's the Big Government stupid. Big Government bailouts, then Big Govt Stimulus, then Big Govt Cap & Trade ... The American people see DC running amok and they don't like it. They SHOULD be outraged, because the President is not. The announcement of a $9 trillion debt increase in Obama's term should be an instant and stunning wakeup call. We've maxed out the credit card and we simply CANNOT afford to splurge on yet another tax-and-spend-and-regulate massive Government program.

Matt Welsh wrote above about the big government problem and in it identified top 10 Government power grabs under Obama:

1. The Stimulus ($787 billion)

2. The Omnibus ($410 billion)

3. Health Care Reform ($1 trillion?)

4. Cap and Trade.

5. Antitrust lawsuits against Google, et al.

6. Pay Czar.

7. Turning Pell Grants into an entitlement.

8. Having the Food and Drug Administration regulate tobacco.

9. Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

10. Federal Trade Commission overreach.

If President Obama attempts to 'fix' his problems with salesmanship, he will fail. The problem is fundamental: Obama has the wrong focus, the wrong agenda, the wrong priorities, and the wrong ideas. It is an ultimate act of mis-leadership by President Obama, and an act of ideology triumphing over common sense, that he pursues his command-and-control programmatic agenda, including these ten items, while failing to focus on economic recovery and private sector job creation as Job One.

Obama's Big Government Agenda is a clunker. Time to trade it in before it breaks down.

Obama's Four Vicious Lies

This video was shot at the Recess Rally in downtown Austin on Saturday, August 22, 2009.

My Email to the AARP

As a response to a solicitation for membership in AARP (I'm 49 -- never too young to be considered a retired person), I sent an email message to AARP Membership on Monday, August 10, 2009 11:40 PM. Just in case AARP management didn't get my message (to date, I have not received a reply) they can read it right here.

To The Leftist Leadership of The AARP:

Now why would anyone want to join an organization purporting to represent the interests of retired persons, but that is so willing to throw such people “under the bus” on behalf of Lord Obama and his plan to ration healthcare to the non-productive, especially non-productive Seniors. Give me a break. You’ve got to be kidding. There is a special place in Hell for people like those who run the AARP. Enjoy your Oamacare there.

BTW, you might want to stop sending this 49 year old your AARP propaganda. I’ll just use it against you. Also, you left off “Death Planning” from your list of “Services”.

Go ahead, report me to flag@whitehouse.gov. I’m exercising my free speech rights, guaranteed by the US Constitution. I’ll see Obama at the impeachment hearings.

Mad as Hell and I’m Not Going to Take it Anymore,

Originally signed by me

Coincidentally, the day after the email was sent to AARP, Newmax.com published this story AARP to Obama: No Health Plan Endorsement Yet to distance itself from President Obama's statement that AARP had endorsed "Obamacare". Tom Nelson, AARP's chief operating officer, said, "Indications that we have endorsed any of the major healthcare reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate."

Now, it seems that the AARP is getting sucked back into the Obamacare orbit as it bleeds anti-Obamacare members (see AARP Exodus Illustrates Obamacare’s Effects On Seniors).

Lamar Smith: ObamaCare's loopholes for illegal immigrants

"Are illegal immigrants covered by ObamaCare?" asks Patterico. Obama insisted that HR3200 doesn't cover illegal aliens, but Rep Lamar Smith corrects President Obama:

The Democrats’ bill in the House, H.R. 3200, contains gaping loopholes that will allow illegal immigrants to receive taxpayer-funded benefits. And these loopholes are no accident.

The legislation contains no verification mechanism to ensure that illegal immigrants do not apply for benefits. Republicans offered an amendment to close this loophole — it would have required verification using the existing methods that are already in place to verify eligibility for other federal benefits programs. But, when they were asked to put the language of the bill where their words were, in a party-line vote, House Democrats rejected the amendment to require verification and close this loophole.

News article on Republican attempts to add verification turned away by the Democrats in Congress. So the citizenship status of ObamaCare beneficiaries is not verified, and statements in HR3200 that illegal aliens are not covered is just papering over the issue. About 10 million of the 45 million uninsured are illegal immigrants. So how can they claim to solve the 'problem' of 45 million unsinured without giving health insurance to illegal immigrants? (Wait, we know the answer to that conundrum - Amnesty!)

Palin: No Healthcare Reform without Tort Reform

Sarah Palin lays down the challenge:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry noted that, after his state enacted tort reform measures, the number of doctors applying to practice medicine in Texas “skyrocketed by 57 percent” and that the tort reforms “brought critical specialties to underserved areas.” These are real reforms that actually improve access to health care. [5]

Dr. Weinstein’s research shows that around $200 billion per year could be saved with legal reform. That’s real savings. That’s money that could be used to build roads, schools, or hospitals.

If you want to save health care, let’s listen to our doctors too. There should be no health care reform without legal reform. There can be no true health care reform without legal reform.

- Sarah Palin

Obamacare in Meltdown

Who's to blame for Obamacare's woes?.

We are seeing the American people rising up to reject the bill, over the threat to Granny's medicare, over bureaucrats denying/rationing care, over the huge cost on top of our $2 trillion current deficit, over the Trojan Horse public option that will end up being single-payer, over taxpayer-funded abortions, etc. As a result, the Obama Team has gone into major spin mode, denying and calling 'myths' factual critiques of the bill. There is 'mininformation' misinformation.

Congress has gone into meltdown over it, from AWOL Congressmen and Reps 'phoning in' their townhalls to McCarthyite tactics. Democrats in townhalls are tacking right to escape voter wrath. America didn't sign up for socialized healthcare when they voted for Obama, and the angry townhall protests are making even the most dense of liberals realize this. For Congress, their Job One is re-election, and a public-option healthcare bill - which the left-liberal core Democrats demand - will be election suicide. This contradiction, and the fact that 2010 is looking like 1994 redux is creating the meltdown.

Sen Reid is willing to 'go nuclear' on this bill. If they do that, it will be a true electoral death-wish. Maybe he will rethink this after Congress gets back in session. If this bill was a genuinely good bill, the Republican minority in Congress would be irrelevent and it would find the needed support in the Democratic majority and with Republicans. But it is an ideologically driven left-wing Big Govt bill. So the right can credit Obama for their rebound. Obama's extremist agenda is the real driving force behind the Tea Party movement and townhall protests. As a result, we see new leaders emerging in the opposition to Obamacare, and Conservatives are finding their voice on healthcare reform.

The Team Obama log-rolling of intimidating corporations, enlisting/abusing organizations to sign up, etc., is backfiring. A case in point: AARP is losing membership due to their unwise support of ObamaCare. Trickery like phony doctors planted to support ObamaCare is getting exposed. Maybe the real problem is the top guy keeps contradicting himself.

It certainly was foolish to cost-bend Medicare to the point of stirring up the over 65 crowd. As one commenter put it: "They have however stepped in it, they took on Seniors. Many of them are well informed, well read, crusty and tough. The man who sleeps in the White House will lose this round."

Disorganized populist rage against the Obamacare bill is leading to tut-tutting over some of the expressions used. But it's a predictable double-standard: The Oba-media use a Larouchite's Obama=Hitler poster to tar Obama opponents (while failing to note her Larouche Democrat background), but where was the MSM the past 8 years on this point? MSNBC insinuates a gun-toting black Obama supporter is a white racist Obama opponent. Way back when, dissent was patriotic - now Democrats are accusing GOP Senators of 'treason' for dissenting on ObamaCare. Liberals are expressing their intolerance by demanding boycotts of Whole Foods stores because CEO McKay made a sensible alternative proposal to ObamaCare, and boycotting Glen Beck for exercising his first amendment rights in ways that might be over-the-top, but are less so than what you see and hear on MSNBC or Air America on a daily basis.

What gives?

The Obama Machine is sputtering. Many ugly details remain to be hashed out and negotiated, and fall season legislative slog to get this passed could get even worse for the Democrats. Corruption and self-dealing and union payoffs will get exposed. Intrade now has chance of Public Option bill near single digits percent probability. Co-ops? A mini-Trojan Horse to replace the Public Option Trojan Horse.

Sooner or later, in this representative democracy, the voice of the people will be heard. It's Obama's call on whether he listens now or has to be instructed in the next election.