Health Care Bill’s Plan to Cut Medicare Payments to Hospitals that Readmit Ailing Senior Citizens Could Have ‘Serious Consequences’
(CNSNews.com) – A plan to reduce preventable hospital readmissions is included in all of the health care bills before Congress and would impose a fee on hospitals that readmit patients for certain conditions, such as pneumonia and heart failure. The details on how the readmissions policy would work, however, are largely left up to the Health and Human Services Department, a fact that concerns the nation’s hospitals.

Cato’s Tanner: Medicare Will Be Cut

Friday, October 16, 2009 12:37 PM

By: Dan Weil

Medicare benefits will be cut regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans have their way, says Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

“Democrats would have us believe that they can cut $500 billion from Medicare spending over the next 10 years without anyone getting less of anything,” Tanner wrote in a Cleveland Plain Dealer opinion piece.

“They are going to save that money, the president says, by eliminating ‘fraud, waste and abuse.’ Undoubtedly that would be the same fraud, waste and abuse that presidents have been eliminating since at least, say, Ronald Reagan.”

The bills being debated in Congress “would cut payments to Medicare Advantage plans by $100 billion to $150 billion,” Tanner wrote.

“In response, many insurers are expected to stop participating in the program, while others will probably increase the premiums they charge seniors. Millions of seniors will likely be forced off their current plans and back into traditional Medicare.”

As for Republicans, “They’ve reacted with the least-convincing outrage since Inspector Renault discovered there was gambling going on at Rick’s,” Tanner wrote. “But their outrage ignores the fact that back in February, these same Republicans proposed even bigger Medicare cuts as part of their alternative budget.”

To be sure, cuts must be made in Medicare, Tanner wrote. “The truth is that, depending on which set of accounting measures is used, Medicare is facing unfunded liabilities of $50 trillion to $100 trillion.”

“We cannot and will not continue to pay all promised future Medicare benefits. Of course, there are differences about how future cuts would be made and what we should do with the money.”

Here Tanner criticized the Democrats. “Democratic plans to simply plow the money back into a new government healthcare program, for example, would do nothing to help our long-term fiscal problems.”

Meanwhile, pharmaceutical industry lobbyists are fighting efforts to cut Medicare drug costs.

“The lobbyists are winning,” Rep. Jim Cooper, a conservative Tennessee Democrat who teaches health policy, told The New York Times.

Senate Health Plan Depletes Medicare, Raises Premiums, Thwarts Constitution!

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 12:56 PM

By: Jim Meyers

The healthcare reform proposal that forces people to buy health insurance could be unconstitutional — and the government’s “public option” insurance plan will ultimately lead to the rationing of medical care, Sen. Charles Grassley tells Newsmax.

The Iowa Republican — the ranking GOP member of the Senate Finance Committee — also said the plan before Congress is bound to shift “leftward” as is moves through the legislative process.

Newsmax.TV’s Ashley Martella noted that the Finance Committee on Tuesday voted 14-9 in favor of an $829 billion, 10-year healthcare remake, with only one Republican, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, voting for the bill. He asked Sen. Grassley about her vote.

See Video: Sen. Chuck Grassley talks about the costly new mandates in the Democrats’ healthcare plans – Click Here Now

Special: Get Sarah Palin’s New Book – Incredible FREE Offer — Click Here Now.

“I couldn’t vote yes for several reasons, and I don’t know her reason for voting,” Grassley responded.

“But you want to remember one thing: She’s pretty meticulous and she moves ahead, and she is not committed to following this thing all the way through the process. That’s what she’s told me. And it better not get any more leftward or they will lose her.”

Grassley added that when the bill moves leftward it may even have a “public option” in it.

Under such a plan, individuals and businesses would be allowed to join a public healthcare insurance system — which critics contend would eventually bankrupt private insurers by offering cheaper healthcare insurance.

“When you have a public option, the Heritage Foundation said, all these people are going to opt out and go into the government plan because the government’s not a competitor, it’s a predator,” Grassley warned.

“When you do that you’re going to move into an area where pretty soon everybody’s in the government-run plan, and pretty soon you have what they have in Canada — a government-run plan with no choice, with rationing.”

Grassley explained why he opposed the Finance Committee bill.

“First of all, it takes $404 billion out of Medicare, and you want to remember that Medicare is in bad shape anyway. So why would you take that money and put it into a new government entitlement program?

“Secondly, this is the first time in the 225-year history of our country that we have forced you as a constituent to buy a product. You’ve been free to buy or not to buy, but now for the first time you’re going to have to buy health insurance. And if you don’t buy it, the IRS is going to tax the family $1,500.”

As to whether this provision is constitutional, Grassley said: “I’m not a lawyer but I’ve listened to some lawyers speak on this. I don’t think we’ve ever had this issue before of having to buy something, and a lot of constitutional lawyers are saying it is unconstitutional, or at least a violation of the Tenth Amendment.”

That amendment provides that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states “are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Grassley continued: “Maybe states can do this, but can the federal government do it? So I have my doubts.

“But here’s the untold story — 85 percent of people in this country have health insurance already. So what does the Congressional Budget Office as well as the industry say? That premiums are going to go up for that 85 percent of the people because of our not doing anything to keep them from going up.

“What is this healthcare debate mostly about for those 85 percent of the people? They’re tired of their premiums going up so much over the past four or five years. Then you’re going to have what’s called the individual mandate — you have to buy insurance — and you still have 25 million people who don’t have health insurance.”

Martella asked if Grassley agrees with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s assertion that the bill approved by the Finance Committee will never come before the Senate.

“I 100 percent agree with it,” Grassley declared. “That doesn’t mean that none of it will come before the Senate. What he’s saying is, it’s not going to have an identity all by itself because it’s going to be merged with the Senate Health Committee bill that came out of committee back in July when Senator Kennedy was chairing that committee.

“Understand that this thing has moved leftward even in the Finance Committee. I was part of a group of six negotiating what was supposed to be a bipartisan bill. The White House pulled the rug out from those negotiations because they wanted to move ahead.

“So they moved ahead in a partisan way and the bill moved leftward in the Finance Committee. And when it’s merged with the Senate Health Committee bill it’s going to move more leftward.

“Then when you look at all the left-wing ideas that [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi has in the House of Representatives, with her vast majority over there, it’s going to move further to the left.”

See Video: Sen. Chuck Grassley talks about the costly new mandates in the Democrats’ healthcare plans – Click Here Now

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Finance Committee Health Bill Includes $507 Billion in New Taxes and Fees
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
By Matt Cover

In this Sept. 29, 2009 file photo, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of Nev., right, speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., left, and newly-named Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, center, listen. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)

(CNSNews.com) – The health-care bill that the Senate Finance Committee will vote on today will cost a total of $829 billion over 10 years, with $507 billion of that cost being covered by new federal taxes and fees, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

On Oct. 7, the CBO released a report on the budget impact of the “chairman’s mark” summary of the bill that the Finance Committee is set to vote on today. Based on the document it was given, the CBO found that the bill would reduce the federal budget deficit by $81 billion over 10 years.  That estimate was based on the calculation that, if enacted, the bill would bring in $480 billion in new tax revenues and $27 billion in fees.

These new taxes and fees include:

– $201 billion in new taxes on high-premium health care plans.

– $83 billion in new taxes paid by workers who will receive less employer-sponsored coverage or lose that coverage altogether but will be compensated with higher wages or monetary benefits, which are taxable.

– $23 billion in penalty fees paid by employers who do not comply with the federal insurance mandate.

– $4 billion in penalty fees paid by individuals who don’t have health insurance.

– $16 billion in new income and Medicare payroll tax revenue due to changes in Medicare.

– $180 billion in other tax revenues items calculated by the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT).

According to the JCT, this $180 billion in new taxes would include: A new tax on prescription drug makers that would account for $22.2 billion over 10 years; a new tax on medical device manufacturers that would bring in $38.6 billion; and a new annual tax on insurance companies would net the government $60.4 billion.

Also, a provision that raises the threshold at which medical expenses become tax deductible, from 7.5 percent of income to 10 percent of income, would reportedly yield the government $15.2 billion in new revenue from sick and disabled Americans with high out-of-pocket medical costs.

It would also include $5.4 billion derived from changing the definition of a deductible medical expense for health savings accounts; $14.6 billion from limiting to $2,500 the tax-deductible amount in flexible spending arrangements between employers and employees; $17.1 billion in revenue from expanded requirements (and potential penalties) on corporate reporting of taxable payments to other parties; and $5.4 billion from sponsors of Medicare Part D plans who are no longer able to deduct subsidies paid by the government to those plans.

The overall bill would cost $829 billion, according to the CBO, the cost of which apparently would be covered by a combination of savings, taxes, and penalties. The CBO said that the Baucus bill (currently in summary form, not final legislative language) would probably achieve $404 billion in spending cuts and other savings, largely through cuts to Medicare payments to physicians and to the Medicare Advantage insurance programs. The costs would come primarily from generous federal health insurance subsidies and entitlement expansions.

Stabenow: Middle Class Won’t Be Hit By Health Bill’s Cut in Tax Deduction for Medical Expenses Because They Don’t Itemize Deductions

Monday, October 12, 2009

By Karen Schuberg and Adam Brinkley

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) (AP photo)(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D.-Mich.), who serves on the Senate Finance Committee, says that a provision in the committee’s health care reform bill that increases the medical expenses a person must incur before they can write them off of their federal income taxes is not a tax increase on the middle-class–and thus a violation of President Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on people making under $250,000 per year– because middle class people generally don’t itemize their deductions and thus aren’t able to claim the deduction.

A spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union, however, says Stabenow’s assertion is incorrect.

“I believe it’s 60 percent of Americans don’t itemize their taxes, so they’re not able to use that provision,” Stabenow told CNSNews.com.

Peter Sepp, vice president of communications for the National Taxpayers Union, however, contradicted Sen. Stabenow, saying that IRS data for 2007 show that almost all of the people taking the itemized income tax deduction for medical expenses made less than $250,000 per year, and that a majority made less than $50,000 per year.

“Now out of the 10.6 million individuals who claimed the medical expense itemized deduction on their tax year 2007 returns, a total of 5.9 million of that 10.6 million reported AGI of $50,000 or less,” said Sepp.

“By definition, this tax would definitely affect the middle class—virtually all of it,” Sepp said. “When all but 50,000 of the 10.6 million people claiming the medical expense deduction make less than $250,000c — the math is inescapable here.”

The provision, buried on page 257 of the committee’s 259 page markup, the passage reads: “(T)his provision increases the threshold for the deduction from 7.5 percent of (Adjusted Gross Income) to 10 percent of AGI for regular income tax purposes.”

Under current law, Americans can write their medical bills off of their income taxes if they exceed 7.5 percent of their income, but this new provision would mean that medical bills must exceed 10 percent of a person’s total income to be deducted.

During a conference call on health-reform last week, CNSNews.com asked Stabenow if the provision to raise the threshold would break President Obama’s pledge to not raise taxes on middle-class families — those earning less than $250,000 a year.

“When we look in total at what we’re doing – (expanding) the Medicaid safety net, the tax provisions to help small businesses, and individuals (being) able to purchase insurance that had not been able to do before . . . (there) will be much less impact or need for that provision than there currently is today,” Stabenow claimed.

Because senior citizens–who typically have higher medical expenses–would be exempt from the provision, most people will not be affected, Stabenow claimed.

“The only way someone’s able to use this is itemizing their deductions,” she said, “and most Americans don’t do that. And so when you take out seniors, and when you look at all the other reforms, the people that would be left that might use this would be upper income people.”

Stabenow denied that the provision would target sick people by raising their taxes when an aim of the health care plan is to lower medical costs.

“When we then look at the fact that the federal government is going to reinsure or cover costs of any claim above $15,000–between $15,000 and $90,000–under our reinsurance provision, the federal government would pay up to 80 percent of that, and when you look at the other provisions in the bill, of making insurance more affordable, and the tax incentives and so on, very few people would be impacted by this change, and they would tend to be people with very high income,” the senator said.

Penalizing the Sick

Michael Cannon, a scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, told CNSNews.com that raising the threshold amounts to imposing a tax, and the argument that the tax would only affect the rich misses the point: it would penalize the sick–rich or poor.

“It is a tax break that you only get if your medical expenses exceed a certain percentage of your income,” he said, “so if you say that it only hits rich people, what you’re admitting is it only hits really, really sick rich people.”

The National Taxpayers Union’s Sepp challenged Stabenow’s claim that “most Americans” do not itemize their deductions–and that the middle class wouldn’t be affected.

“Almost certainly most homeowners with two earners in the household itemize because mortgage and trust and property taxes are huge deductions,” Sepp told CNSNews.com.

“Clearly, single folks, renters, low-income folks don’t itemize, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that middle-class folks don’t either. (Stabenow) is kind of playing with words there,” Sepp said.

“Very clearly, some middle-class individuals who have catastrophic medical events qualify for the deduction now,” he said.

Moreover, the threshold for medical deductions is already tough enough to meet, Sepp said.

“When you think about it, if you make $50,000 in adjusted gross income, you had to have spent more than $3,000 of it on out-of-pocket medical expenses. That’s a heck of a lot. So you’re dealing with a limited universe of people taking the deduction to begin with,” he said.

“This will certainly make it harder, and it will definitely affect some people making under $250,000 a year,” Sepp said. “The numbers won’t be huge because the number of people who take the deduction is not gigantic in the first place. But some middle class individuals definitely will be affected.”

Citing IRS data for taxes filed in the calendar year 2008, Sepp said that in 2007, 50.5 million returns out of 143 million–a little over one-third–contained itemized deductions.

Of those, he said, 10.6 million claimed medical and dental expenses.

“Now out of the 10.6 million individuals who claimed the medical expense itemized deduction on their tax year 2007 returns, a total of 5.9 million of that 10.6 million reported AGI of $50,000 or less.”

That means over half of those who used the deduction qualify as middle-class, Sepp said.

“Now if we want to go to the top of the scale, $250,000 or more out of the 10.6 million claiming medical and dental expense deductions, 50,600 were claims submitted by folks with more than $250,000 of AGI,” he said.

“By definition, this tax would definitely affect the middle class—virtually all of it,” Sepp said. “When all but 50,000 of the 10.6 million people claiming the medical expense deduction make less than $250,000c — the math is inescapable here.”

“Those who want to deny it need to pay a phone call to the IRS. It’s as simple as that,” Sepp said.

A CNSNews.com examination of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data, substantiates the claim that the tax deduction is overwhelmingly taken by middle-class taxpyaers.

On page 18 of the IRS’ “Report on Individual Income Tax Returns for 2007,” the government agency reported that of the 10,564,676 tax returns that claimed the medical and dental expenses deduction, 5,910,345 had reported adjusted gross income of $50,000 or less, the IRS reported.

Of those who made $50,000 to $100,000 — 3,592,647 took medical deductions.

For those who made $100,000 to under $200,000 — 959,723

For those who made $200,000 to under $250,000 — 51,376,

For those who made $250,000 or more — 50,584 itemized this deduction.

——————————–

Transcript:

CNSNews.com: Under current law, individuals who spend 7.5 percent of their AGI on medical expenses can count it as a deduction. The Senate Finance Committee health care package includes a provision that “increases the threshold for the deduction from 7.5 percent of AGI to 10 percent of AGI for regular income tax purposes.”

So people who may have had that deduction no longer would under this provision. My question is, would this provision to raise the threshold from 7.5 percent to 10 percent break Obama’s pledge to not raise taxes on middleclass families, those earning less than $250,000 a year?

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.): First of all, one of the very popular amendments we accepted in committee was to make sure that seniors are exempted from that, and then when we look in total at what we’re doing, expanding Medicaid safety net, the tax provisions to help small businesses, and individuals be able to purchase insurance that had not been able to do before, when we look at the other coverage changes and so on, it will be much less impact or need for that provision than there currently is today.

We have a reinsurance for high cost, early retirees, that both health committee and finance shall address that, making sure that early retirees 55-64 don’t hit those costs you’re talking about. And so, the bill goes a long way to address this.

And the second thing I would say is that the only way someone’s able to use this is itemizing their deductions, and most Americans don’t do that. And so when you take out seniors, and when you look at all the other reforms, the people that would be left that might use this would be upper income people.

CNSNews.com: An aim of the health-care plan is to lower medical costs. But would this provision target sick people by raising taxes for people with health care expenses?

Sen. Deborah Stabenow (D-Mich.): I would say again, no. I mean, what we’re talking about is, I believe it’s 60 percent of Americans don’t itemize their taxes so they’re not able to use that provision. Of those who tend to have higher expenses that might use it, the majority of them are senior citizens who are exempt from this provision. So when we then look at the fact that the federal government is going to reinsure or cover costs of any claim above $15,000, between $15,000 and $90,000, under our reinsurance provision, the federal government would pay up to 80 percent of that, and when you look at the other provisions in the bill, of making insurance more affordable, and the tax incentives and so on, very few people would be impacted by this change, and they would tend to be people with very high income.

La Raza Wants Healthcare for Illegal Aliens

The president of the National Council of La Raza, America’s largest Hispanic advocacy organization, said healthcare reform should include “everyone” — including illegal aliens.

Speaking at a press conference in support of President Barack Obama’s efforts to overhaul the healthcare system, La Raza President Janet Murguia said:

“From our perspective there’s a strong case to be made in this country for us to reform healthcare,” and “it ought to include everyone.

“We know that politically it’s very difficult right now to take on the issue of undocumenteds [but] there’s no reason why we shouldn’t be trying to cover as many people as possible, certainly when it comes to undocumented children. Our goal should be to have healthcare for everyone.”

Murguia told CNSNews: “In terms of fairness and cost efficiencies, I think it’s in the interest of healthcare reform to have access to as many people as possible.”

Language inserted in the healthcare reform legislation would make federal health insurance subsidies available only to U.S. citizens and legal residents. But the House and Senate bills do not contain a clear provision for verifying citizenship status.

Rep. Michael Honda, a California Democrat, said undocumented aliens, “if they can afford it, should be able to buy their own private plans. It keeps them out of the emergency room.”

Rep. Honda and other Democrats who support his position say that the illegals should be able to buy insurance “even if it comes through a government-established exchange,” the Washington Times reported.

But Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican, declared: “If anyone can, with a straight face, advocate that we should provide health insurance for people who broke into our country, broke our laws and for the most part are criminals, I don’t know where they ever would draw the line.”

MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER
10/7/2009

We must demand our legislators read the health care bills! How could they even consider voting on a proposed law that could radically change health care in America without reading it first? Have they forgotten that they work for us?

Calling the language in the current health care bill “arcane”, “confusing”, “hard to understand”, and “incomprehensible”, Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) admitted to CNSNews.com that he wasn’t going to read the actual legislative language because he finds it “one of the more confusing things I have ever read in my life.”

Is he kidding? Click here to view this CNSNews.com video.

With the liberal media languishing in their Obama-induced stupor, and seemingly unable or unwilling to do real reporting, the alternative media are stepping up and breaking these kinds of outrageous stories—from the corruption of ACORN to the radical views of Obama’s czars to this astonishing admission that lawmakers don’t actually read the bills they vote on!

And they wonder why we don’t trust them to do what’s best for us!

Since our CNSNews.com team broke this amazing story, it has rippled across the blogosphere, being picked up by several conservative websites, including the Drudge Report and Michelle Malkin.

As a result, Americans are becoming increasingly aware, and are demanding greater accountability from our lawmakers, who seem befuddled that citizens would want access to the actual bill as it’s written as opposed to trusting them to summarize it for us.

Richard M., as you can see, the leftist media certainly aren’t going to report on this kind of brazen arrogance. Instead they want to keep you in the dark.

Send a message to the media right now by stepping out of the darkness and adding your name to our national “Demand the Media ‘Tell the Truth!’ About Government-Run Health Care” petition. Click here to sign.

Signing takes just seconds, but it puts the media and our lawmakers on notice, letting them know that you won’t be falling for the lies and spin anymore!
Richard M., until the media stop promoting ObamaCare and hiding ugly truths like the one in this CNSNews.com video, we need to continue to demand accountability from them. That’s why your signature right now is so important.

And after signing, invite your friends and family members to watch the video and sign our petition as well.

With your help, we can spread this important video across the nation—reaching tens of thousands of citizens who can sign our petition and go on record demanding greater accountability from the liberal media and from our elected representatives.

Thank you taking immediate action with the MRC for truth in the media.

David Martin

P.S. Send this to your family and friends and encourage them to sign our health care petition.

P.P.S. Get more breaking news at CNSNews.com. You can also join CNSNews.com on Facebook and Twitter.

+ If you are a member of the military or a federal employee, you can contribute to the MRC through the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC). Just mark CFC 12489 to support the MRC.

With the Senate Finance Committee poised to pass health care legislation, the final contours of the bill that could come out of Congress are starting to come into focus. The bill will contain new taxes on the middle class. It will add to the deficit. And it will put government bureaucrats between Americans and their doctors, among other things.

So it’s not too early to ask the obvious question: Will President Obama veto health care reform?

It’s worth asking because so many of the costs to taxpayers the President has repeatedly promised won’t be in the legislation are, and so many of the benefits are not.

What follows is a list, in no particular order, of the contradictions between the President’s promises and the reality of Democratic health care reform. Add them up and it’s hard to see how President Obama doesn’t reject the bill Congress seems likely to send him.

Contradiction #1: From a Promise Not to Raise Taxes
on the Middle Class to $2 Billion in “Penalties”

As far back as the campaign, President Obama promised he wouldn’t raise taxes on Americans making less than $250,000.

But an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that at least 71 percent of the individual mandate penalties in Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus’s (D-MT) bill would be paid by Americans earning less than $250,000. In fact, the nonpartisan analysis found that, of the $2.8 billion in penalties the bill imposes on those who do not purchase health insurance, a full $2 billion will be paid by taxpayers earning less than $120,000 for a family of four.

The Senate Finance bill also levies $215 billion in new taxes on employers and health insurers for offering high-value insurance benefits, which will surely be passed onto all consumers.

Republicans tried to ensure that President Obama’s words would not ring hollow by offering an amendment that said: “This amendment provides that no tax, fee or penalty imposed by this legislation shall be applied to any individual earning less than $200,000 per year or any couple earning less than $250,000 per year.” Democrats defeated it.

Contradiction #2: From a Promise to Reject a Bill That “Adds One
Dime to the Deficit” to $239 Billion Added to the Deficit

In his speech to the Joint Session of Congress, the President was adamant: “I will not sign [a bill] if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period.”

And yet House bill H.R. 3200 will increase the deficit by an amazing $239 billion over the next decade.

The Baucus bill pretends to be deficit neutral but it’s an accounting gimmick. “It pays for itself” by forcing a new $250-300 billion unfunded mandate on the states. And it doesn’t include nearly $300 billion that will be spent to adjust physician payments in Medicare.

Contradiction #3: From a Promise That “If You Like Your Current Plan
You Can Keep It” to Half of Medicare Advantage Benefits Being Cut

In his speech to the Joint Session of Congress last month and elsewhere, the President has reassured nervous Americans that if they like their current coverage, his reform will let them keep it.

Unless you happen to have Medicare Advantage, that is.

Or employer provided insurance.

The director of the nonpartisan CBO testified before the Senate that, under the Senate bill, the benefits of seniors under Medicare Advantage would be cut in half.

And an analysis of the House bill found that 88 million people will lose their current insurance under government health care.

What’s more, both bills would disrupt vision care for more than 100 million Americans.

Contradiction #4: From “If You Like Your Current Doctor
You Can Keep Your Doctor” to Squeezing Doctors and
Hospitals Until They Reduce Patient Access

Here’s what three doctors who are former chairmen of the American Medical Association (AMA) say about the cuts to Medicare in Democratic health reform bills:

“Now the government is saying that additional Medicare cuts are coming-thus forcing doctors to try and make up the difference in volume, by seeing more patients. If you ask patients about this, they understand that more volume means less time with the doctor. That’s something that all patients and doctors should oppose. In time, it will be difficult to find a physician.”

And here’s what the executive director of the Mayo Clinic said: “We will have to violate our values in order to stay in business and reduce our access to government patients.”

Contradiction #5: From a Promise that No Government Bureaucrat
Will Stand Between Patients and Doctors to a Medicare
Commission With the Power to Deny Treatment

Just this week, in a speech to doctors gathered in the White House Rose Garden, President Obama reiterated his pledge not to let a Washington bureaucrat get between a patient and their doctor.

But the Senate Baucus bill creates an “Independent Medicare Commission” with the ability to deny benefits to the elderly or the disabled based on a government calculation of the costs versus the benefits.

Contradiction #6: From a Promise to “Slow the Growth of Health
Care Costs For Our Families” to a New Tax on Hearing Aids,
Wheel Chairs and Breakthrough Drugs

In his speech to the Joint Session of Congress, the President pledged to “slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses and our government.”

But the Senate bill contains a tax on medical technology companies and drug makers that will raise the cost to American families for thousands of drugs and devices, including pacemakers, eyeglasses, hearing aids and powered wheelchairs.

Contradiction #7: From a Promise that Health Care Reform Will
Fix the Economy to New Taxes on Small Businesses

One of President Obama’s main rationales for health care reform is that it is necessary for economic recovery.

Working against this promise is the provision in the Senate bill that will tax small businesses – the engine of American economic growth and job creation – that can’t afford to purchase health insurance for their employees. It’s hard to see how the economy recovers when small businesses are prevented from hiring new workers by a new government tax.

Contradiction #8: From Insuring All Americans to Leaving 25 Million Uninsured

One of President Obama’s three basic goals for health care reform is to provide insurance to those who don’t currently have it.

That’s the promise. The reality? The CBO has determined that the Senate bill will leave about 25 million nonelderly Americans uninsured.

I could go on, but I think the point is made. The differences between what Americans have been promised from health care reform and what they are getting go beyond the usual give and take of Washington.

A Congress controlled by the President’s party is producing health care legislation that blatantly contradicts his most basic, often repeated, promises.

What will the President do? Will President Obama veto health care reform?

Stay tuned.

Your friend, Newt Gingrich

Dick Armey: Obamacare Will be ‘Ruthless’ to Patients, Elderly

Tuesday, October 6, 2009 6:22 PM

By: Jim Meyers

A government-run healthcare system favored by many Democrats would be “ruthless” in its treatment of healthcare recipients, warns former House Majority Leader Dick Armey.

In a wide-ranging exclusive Newsmax interview, the Texas Republican also said Sarah Palin will prove to be a far better proponent of small-government conservatism than John McCain was in 2008.

And Armey agrees with House Minority Leader John Boehner’s recent assertion to Newsmax that President Obama’s appointment of many so-called “czars” constitutes a “circumvention” of the Constitution.

See Video: Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey discusses the dangers of Obamacare – Click Here Now

Special: Get Sarah Palin’s New Book – Incredible FREE Offer — Click Here Now.

Armey, who entered the House in 1984, was a leading architect of the “Republican Revolution” in the 1990s and the Contract with America. He was a national sponsor of the March on Washington in September, and is chairman of the conservative non-profit organization FreedomWorks.

Armey was instrumental in a lawsuit that successfully challenged a requirement that seniors had to enroll in Medicare or lose their Social Security benefits.

“This is a big victory for me and I think for America, for my partners in the lawsuit,” he said in his interview with Newsmax.TV’s Ashley Martella and Kathleen Walter.

“Imagine this: They have been enforcing a policy memorandum since 1993 — not a law, not a regulation, just a memorandum — that says, for example, if you’re a Christian Scientist and you decide not to enroll in Medicare, you lose your Social Security. What audacity is this?

“It’s an issue that needed to be set right, and we’ve done that, and I’m proud of the courts for seeing our case.

“But it’s also a reflection people should look at: If they’re that ruthless with our senior citizens, they’ll be that ruthless with you and me if they get their hands on all of America’s healthcare. They’ll be these kinds of secret, hidden bureaucratic implementations that aren’t understood or appreciated.”

Noting the massive negative response to Obama’s healthcare reform plans, Armey agreed that we are seeing a “populist uprising.”

He said: “I think it goes back to last April when we had the initial tea party uprisings across the country. It fascinated me to watch the Democrats’ response. They said, they’ll go away. Then they came back in August. Then they had the march on Washington. [The Democrats are] finally coming to terms with the fact that these are very real concerns expressed by hundreds of thousands of American citizens all over the country.

“It boils down to the simple observation by Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama: We can’t get our votes in the legislative body because members of Congress are being responsive to the concerns raised by their constituents.”

Martella cited a Health and Human Services Department “gag order” on insurance companies, stopping them from mailing out information to their clients about the proposed $500 billion cut in the Medicare Advantage program.

“Armey’s axiom: If you’re going to peddle a bum steer, you better keep it under wraps,” he responded. “The first thing they want is, no one should know what’s in this bill.

“This is their strategic mistake: When Speaker Pelosi allowed the committees to report that bill before the August recess, they gave America a chance to read the bill. This is why it blew up in their faces.

“The fact of the matter is, it’s heavy-handed. It is coercive. If you read the bill, it is frightening…

“The country’s really concerned. They consider this a big, unnecessary government takeover, an aggressive government takeover.”

Regarding the so-called “public option” health insurance plan being pushed by Democrats, Armey said that most Democrats in the House “want government-run healthcare. They think having a public insurance option is a compromise from their most desired position, which is just have the government run it all. ”

Walter asked Armey if he is concerned about President Obama’s appointment of several dozen “czars” — special advisors or envoys who have relatively few restrictions on their authority and do not have to win Senate confirmation as Cabinet secretaries do.

“It’s a circumvention of the system,” Armey stated.

“I’d be the first to tell you we have too many Cabinet positions, but every Cabinet position exists in compliance with Constitutionally defined processes.

“With the czars they say, never mind that, we’re going to put extra-curricular people in by my whim and fancy, empower them and circumvent the Senate’s right to advise and consent.

“We don’t know for sure how much power these guys have. Are these ceremonial sops he’s given to his buddies, his cronies, or do they have real authority?

“But it is an administrative structure that is extra-Constitutional, extra-legal, and therefore I think it’s a danger to your liberty and mine.”

Armey said he believes Republicans are poised to do well in next year’s elections because of “public disappointment” in the Obama presidency, but added that “what the Republican don’t have now is that great idea that has a massive appeal to the American people.

“I think they can conceivably win the majority, but until they come up with that idea they’re not prepared to take over the majority.”

Walter noted that a John McCain strategist recently said a Sarah Palin presidential candidacy in 2012 would be disastrous for Republicans.

“You have to understand, McCain strategists feared Sarah Palin the moment she was chosen” because of concerns she might upstage the candidate at the top of the ticket, Armey said.

“Sarah Palin is I think now on her own terms and giving expression to her own voice.

“She’s going to demonstrate herself to be a far more shining example of what small government conservatism is and how well it can be understood and expressed than the McCain campaign was able to do.”

Turning to the economy, Armey observed that only about a quarter of the money allotted in the stimulus package has been spent, and “it has had virtually no impact. I saw Senator [Evan] Bayh say he thought we were better off than we would have been had there been no stimulus package. I think we’re worse off.”

Armey declared that the Democrats’ intention of allowing tax cuts to expire next year will “create more economic damage. When you have a recession you cut taxes, you don’t raise taxes.

“The biggest single problem that beleaguers the American economy is that the government is too big a burden. It’s already so big that the economy can’t carry it.

“Now if you add more government to that, it’s like you’ve got some poor hiker trying to make it up a hill and you keep putting rocks in his knapsack. You’re going to eventually buckle his knees.”

See Video: Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey discusses the dangers of Obamacare – http://video.newsmax.com/?bcpid=20972460001&bclid=22770166001&bctid=43856602001.

Special: Get Sarah Palin’s New Book – Incredible FREE Offer — Click Here Now.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.