No GOP Health Care Proposals? I Don't Think So...

Y'know, I kept hearing about how the Republicans weren't giving any alternatives to the Democratic proposal for health care...let's delve into that a little, shall we?  I found this very helpful list of House GOP proposals in the 111th Congress specifically regarding health care from a mutual friend on FB...

• H.R. 77 - Health Care Incentive Act
• H.R. 109 - America's Affordable Health Care Act
• H.R. 198 - Health Care Tax Deduction Act of 2009
• H.R. 270 - TRICARE Continuity of Coverage for National Guard and Reserve Families Act of 2009
• H.R. 321 - SCHIP Plus Act of 2009
• H.R. 464 - More Children, More Choices Act of 2009
• H.R. 502 - Health Care Freedom of Choice Act
• H.R. 504 - Medicare Hearing Enhancement and Auditory Rehabilitation (HEAR) Act of 2009
• H.R. 544 - Flexible Health Savings Act of 2009
• H.R. 643 - Care for Life Act of 2009
• H.R. 917 - To increase the health benefits of dependents of members of the Armed Forces who die because of a combat-related injury
• H.R. 1075 - RECOVER Act (Restoring Essential Care for Our Veterans for Effective Recovery)
• H.R. 1086 - Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2009
• H.R. 1118 - Health Care Choices for Seniors Act
• H.R. 1441 - Ryan Dant Health Care Opportunity Act of 2009
• H.R. 1458 - Comprehensive Immunosuppressive Drug Coverage for Kidney Transplant Patients Act of 2009
• H.R. 1468 - Medical Justice Act of 2009
• H.R. 1658 - Veterans Healthcare Commitment Act of 2009
• H.R. 1891 - Sunset of Life Protection Act of 2009
• H.R. 2051 - To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize extended benefits for certain autistic dependents of certain retirees
• H.R. 2373 - Home Oxygen Patient Protection Act of 2009
• H.R. 2520 - Patients' Choice Act
• H.R. 2607 - To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to improve access and choice for entrepreneurs with small businesses with respect to medical care for their employees
• H.R. 2692 - CAH Designation Waiver Authority Act of 2009
• H.R. 2784 - Partnership to Improve Seniors Access to Medicare Act
• H.R. 2785 - Health Care Paperwork Reduction and Fraud Prevention Act of 2009
• H.R. 2786 - Patient Fairness and Indigent Care Promotion Act of 2009
• H.R. 2787 - Medical Liability Procedural Reform Act of 2009
• H.R. 3141 - Strengthening the Health Care Safety Net Act of 2009
• H.R. 3217 - Health Care Choice Act
• H.R. 3218 - Improving Health Care for All Americans Act
• H.R. 3356 - Medicare Beneficiary Freedom to Choose Act of 2009
• H.R. 3372 - Health Care OverUse Reform Today Act (HealthCOURT Act)
• H.R. 3400 - Empowering Patients First Act
• H.R. 3438 - Access to Insurance for all Americans Act
• H.R. 3454 - Medicare Hospice Reform and Savings Act of 2009
• H.R. 3478 - Patient-Controlled Healthcare Protection Act of 2009

Um, perhaps my friends on the other side of the aisle would like to retract their claims?!?  Maybe?  Possibly?  NAAAAAH...who am I kiddin'?

Some of these proposals have actually made it to the floor, while others have not...here's a list of those that never made it to the floor...

• Rep. Shaddeg proposed HR 3217 which would allow for for competition across state lines...it has been locked up in the Energy & Commerce Committee from July 2009.
• Obama told us that "I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need." Rep. Gingrey proposed an amendment (consistent with Obama's statement) that would prohibit federal officials from making those decisions—KILLED IN ENERGY & COMMERCE by Rep. Waxman, et al.
• Rep. Herger proposed that the federal government be prohibited from conducting comparative effectiveness research on health care treatments (a precursor to health care rationing)—KILLED IN WAYS & MEANS by Rep. Rangel.
• Rep. McClintock propsed a no-deficit qualification for health care legislation that would block it from going into effect unless it were deficit neutral—KILLED IN COMMITTEE.
• Obama made a campaign pledge of not raising taxes for individuals making less than $200K per year. In that spirit, Rep. Ryan proposed an exemption from all proposed tax increases in the health care bill for that group of individuals—KILLED IN WAYS & MEANS. A similar proposal by Rep. McMorris-Rodgers—KILLED EDUCATION & LABOR by Rep. Miller.
• Rep. Brown-Waite propsed an amendment that would take out all language that cut funding for Medicare Advantage—DEFEATED IN COMMITTEE by Rep. Rangel, et al.
• Reps. Hoekstra and Herger proposed that the employer mandate would be suspended if unemployment reached 10%—KILLED IN COMMITTEE.
• Reps. Reichert and Hunter proposed that an exemption from the employer mandate for companies if they could prove to the Secretary of the Treasury (not just anybody) that the mandate has forced them into financial hardship that has caused them to lay off or cut salaries for current employees or has prevented them from hiring new employees—KILLED IN COMMITTEE.
• Rep. McKeon proposed that small businesses be allowed to band together in small groups to purchase business-specific health plans at lower cost—KILLED IN WAYS & MEANS.
• Reps. Johnson, Cantor, and Souder each offered amendments to remove federal funding for abortions from the health bill that were consistent with PBO’s claim that “under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions”—KILLED IN COMMITTEE.

ANY QUESTIONS? I didn't think so...

Knock, knock puddin’ head…it's a TAX!

This Sunday, PBO set out on the TV talk show marathon…but one stop in particular is of interest. In his interview with George Stephanopoulos, PBO claimed that the penalty for not carrying insurance is not a tax. PBO even made this statement: “George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.” Oh, so now the dictionary is a place where we go to “stretch” the truth? WOW! Maybe I missed that day in class…

But let’s take a look at the health care bills to see what they actually say. Huh…it seems that page 29, line 1 of Baucus’ bill disagrees with PBO. “Excise Tax. The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax”…seems pretty clear to me. Perhaps PBO was talking about the original HR 3200…let’s take a look. Oh…whoops! I guess not…here on page 110, lines 1-6, there’s a section entitled: “TAXES ON INDIVIDUALS NOT OBTAINING ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE. The amounts received in the Treasury under section 59B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to requirement of health insurance coverage for individuals).” Wait a minute, that amends the tax code…I’d pretty much call that a tax—not to mention that the bill refers to it as a “tax.” And then on page 167, there is an entire section dedicated to just this subject: “SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.” Perhaps PBO hasn’t read this bill either…as well as a few hundred other members of congress.

Mr. President, what is being proposed is, indeed, a “TAX” on the American people…that’s an indisputable fact. Is that really the wisest course under our current economic conditions? Raise taxes while the economy is down? Seriously? Perhaps you should consider what the majority of the country (the 90% of us who are not in the $180K and up bracket) would be facing with a tax increase. And then there’s that pesky little statement you made in New Hampshire in 2008: “I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” What about those who make less than $250K a year and choose (of their own volition) NOT to have health insurance, but to pay for medical costs out of their own pocket—thereby NOT being a drag on the insurance system? There are many people who opt out for one reason or another (somewhere between 9.1 million and 20.8 million if you combine the figures for 18-34 year olds and those who make over $75K per year as reported by FactCheck.org—http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/the-real-uninsured/) and you propose to sentence them to a tax increase if they don’t get health insurance that the almighty government (I think Orwell called it “Big Brother”) doesn’t like? Sorry, but that flies directly in the face of your pledge!

If you wish to be consistent with your promise on 9/12/2008, you cannot possibly be in favor of any measure that will obligate anyone to enroll in “acceptable” health insurance or face a tax increase. Creating a safety net is for "last resort" NOT as the standard "everyone must measure up to"…there is NO NEED for a health plan that covers everybody…cover those who need it and them ONLY! That is where my bone of contention lies with all of this...I'm not against helping those who need the help; rather, I am against "helping" those who have no need of it and have not asked for it! Forcing those of us who do not "toe the line" with Big Brother into an extra tax IS penalizing our rights as citizens...attempting to control behavior is not what this country is about. It is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...not penalties, proscription, and the limitation of freedoms!

I'm still waiting...

I’m still waiting to understand why we need Obama Care for EVERY SINGLE US citizen when only a small part of the population is affected…anyone? ANYONE? ANYONE AT ALL?!? Why is it that we have a problem that affects 15-20% of the population (and I’m using PBO’s numbers here—I happen to think that it’s much less than 15-20%—but I’ll use PBO’s numbers for the sake of argument) and the solution that’s being proposed covers 100% of the population? There’s a word that's used for that concept…OVERKILL!

In the 8/3/2009 CNN poll, 83% of respondents said they’re “generally satisfied with the health care they receive”, 74% said they’re “generally satisfied with their health care coverage”, and approximately 59% said they’re satisfied with the cost of their health care coverage. I happen to agree that health care costs a bit too much—but that’s a discussion for a later blog…i.e. taking down state mandated health insurance barriers which allows a person living in MN (for instance) to choose between only 7 or 8 different insurance companies when there are more than 1300 insurance companies in the US (it’s called “competition”)…so I tend to agree that the cost is a bit too much. But back to PBO…

When the Pentagon proposes to spend more money than they NEED, it’s called unnecessary and something that “needs to be corrected” (no argument here)…but when PBO proposes to spend more money than he NEEDS to spend on healthcare, it’s called “critical funding.” WHAT?!? Did someone take just a few too many hits of the happy juice? It’s a “20%” problem people (see my earlier caveat)! Let’s look at a 20% solution for it! Anything else is just plain STUPID!

I have 4 daughters…when we go shopping for shoes, I buy enough shoes for my 4 daughters…I don’t buy 16 extra pairs just for the heck of it! Hello McFly!

I just don't get it...maybe someone can explain it to me...I dunno, maybe PBO’s using the new math…

Dewey Defeats Truman...

Wouldn't you kind of want to make sure you had the story right before you publish it? That is, unless you're...say...Jayson Blair (or Andrew Malcolm in this instance).

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/09/healthcare-reform-violence.html

It seems that--contrary to the initial report in the LA Times--the aggressor was actually a supporter of PBO's health care plan and the victim was an opponent of PBO's health care plan. Isn't that particular detail something rather important NOT to screw up--ESPECIALLY if you're the 4th largest paper in the US by circulation (behind USA Today, WSJ, & NYT)? Now granted, the LA Times did offer an update to the story (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/09/health-care-activist-bites-off-the-finger-of-a-counter-demonstrator.html) but not before democraticunderground.com jumped on the story too (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8622916) ...but that was before they actually checked the facts as well...DOH!

How did the article about Linda Douglass put it? Facts are stubborn things? YEP...exactly!