FreedomWorks

TOP 10 REASONS TO OPPOSE NANCY PELOSI’S TAKEOVER OF HEALTH CARE

ckinnan@freedomworks.org (Chris Kinnan) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:09:42 +0000

Author (optional):

Max Pappas and Matthew Clemente

By Max Pappas and Matthew Clemente

Friday, October 31, 2009

On October 29^th, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.) held a press conference to announce the release of House Democrats' version of health care reform legislation. Using their overwhelming majorities in both the House and the Senate, Congressional Democrats have been seeking to completely remake the American health care system. And, with the support of many lawmakers on Capitol Hill, Democrats hope that the release of the House bill brings them one step close to passing reform. But before this colossal piece of legislation comes to a vote on the House floor, there are some facts that the American people need to consider.

1. America cannot afford Speaker Pelosi’s proposal

Speaker Pelosi announced to the American people that the House bill would cost $894 billion. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), however, estimates that the legislation will cost $1.05 trillion over the next ten years and $150-$200 billion annually. This massive expansion in government spending will increase the already bloated size of the federal government by about 5 percent.

With the federal deficit reaching $1.4 trillion in 2009—an all time high—and unemployment reaching 9.8% in September—a 26 year high—now is not the time to spend money that we simply do not have.

2. Your taxes will go up

The federal government expects to generate revenue from tax increases that include but are not limited to:

· A tax increase of 2.5 percent of adjusted gross income earned by individuals who do not purchase government mandated insurance. This tax increase could affect individuals earning as little as $9,350 a year.

· The repeal of tax incentives offered to those who purchase medical care with Health Savings Accounts (HSA) and Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA).

· A 2.5 percent excise tax on medical device manufacturers that will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

· A new tax on insurance policies—expected to raise $2 billion—which will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums.

· Vast expansions to the Medicaid program which will undoubtedly add to state and local taxes paid by individuals.

· A 5.4 percent tax increase on the income of most small business owners.

· An 8 percent “tax on jobs” for businesses that do not purchase government mandated insurance.

· A 2.5 percent excise tax on the purchase of private insurance plans.

Tax increases on health care, health insurance and jobs do not make health care more affordable.

3. Your insurance premiums will go up

When examining certain aspects of the legislation, it becomes clear that individual premiums will rise:

· The new, $2 billion tax on insurance policies will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums.

· According to estimates by CBO, changes to the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit will raise premiums paid by seniors enrolled in Medicare Part B by $25 billion.

· Seniors enrolled in Part D will see premiums rise by 20 percent.

· The 2.5 percent excise tax on medical devices will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums and more expensive medical devices.

This concern is underscored by the analysis that has already been conducted of very similar pieces of legislation

· The CBO recently analyzed S. 1776 and concluded that it would raise Medicare premiums by $70 billion.

· When discussing the Senate Baucus bill in a recent hearing held before the Senate Finance Committee, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf stated, “Our judgment is that [the Baucus] piece of the legislation would raise insurance premiums.”

And those who purchase private insurance or are on Medicare won’t be the only ones affected by higher premiums. According to the CBO, the government-run public option “would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges.” (Emphasis added)

4. Congress will use the force of government to make you buy a product

The House bill includes an individual mandate which will make every American purchase health insurance. Citizens will be forced—at times against their will—to buy insurance, not because of something that they plan to do but simply because they are alive. Non-compliance with this mandate could result in a tax increase of up to 2.5 percent of adjusted gross income. Forget to pay this tax and you could be fined an additional $25,000 and even face up to a year behind bars.

5. Mandating health insurance is unconstitutional

Supporters of the House bill will argue that Congress is granted constitutional authority to mandate health insurance under the Commerce Clause. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power, “to regulate Commerce… among the several States.” However, the Supreme Court has held that in order for something to be considered commerce it must at very least be an economic activity. A mandate on health insurance forces Americans to purchase a product simply because they are alive. Merely existing is not an economic activity. Giving Congress the ability to force citizens to buy a certain product eliminates every restraint put in place by our nation’s founders and imposes upon the liberties that our government was established to defend.

6. The House reform bill hurts consumers and employees

In part, the House bill aims to fund reform by placing higher tax burdens upon the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, medical device manufactures and employers. Instead of footing the bill for these higher tax burdens, however, companies will pass taxes on to consumers in the form of higher prices and on to employees in the form of lower wages. Consumers and employees will suffer as a result of these “corporate” tax increases. If passed, the bill will ensure that prices go up which is the exact opposite of what we were told reform would do.

7. The Pelosi proposal hurts seniors

Where is much of the money for the $1.05 trillion health care plan supposed to come from?

A great deal of the spending included in the House reform bill is offset by hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare. Such cuts will raise senior’s premiums and weaken their control over their own personal health care destiny. According to CBO estimates, changes in Medicare Part D will raise Medicare Part B premiums by $25 billion and Medicare Part D premiums by 20 percent. The bill also proposes over $150 billion in cuts from the popular Medicare Advantage plan which one out of every five senior citizens uses to get more benefits than traditional Medicare offers.

8. Like the bill that failed in the Senate, House Democrats will try to pass a misleading “Doc Fix”—or health care spending bill—as a precursor to the House bill in an attempt preserve its “deficit neutral” status

On October 21, a bipartisan majority of Senators rejected cloture—a process aimed at bringing debate over legislation to a quick end—for a bill that would have added nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars to the national deficit over the next 10 years. Introduced by Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), S. 1776, the Medicare Physician Fairness Act of 2009, would have spent an additional $247 billion in taxpayer money on reimbursements for physicians through Medicare. While—under the proper circumstances—a "doc fix" such as this has some merit as a means of keeping physicians from abandoning the Medicare program, S. 1776 contained no spending reductions to offset its considerable cost. A "yes" vote would have required Senators to vote to waive their own budget rules which are intended to protect taxpayers. Even worse, the bill brought forth by Democratic leadership would have served as a deceptive way of reducing the perceived cost of future health care reform legislation.

Now, members of the House are trying to pull the same stunt. In part, the House bill owes its “deficit neutral” status to the reduction of hundreds of billions of dollars in physician reimbursements through Medicare that exist within the legislation. The passage of a “doc-fix” would negate reductions in the House bill without adding to the perceived cost of reform. This deception explains why the House bill is estimated to reduce the deficit. If the “doc-fix” were included in the House bill, however, it would add at least $200 billion to the deficit in the first 10 years, and most likely much more beyond that.

Splitting higher reimbursements into a separate piece of legislation is an underhanded attempt by Speaker Pelosi and Democratic leadership to deceive Americans about the true cost of their health care overhaul. Hopefully, members of the House will follow the lead of the Senate and join together in a bipartisan effort to prevent such a bill from passing.

9. The House bill is massive

The bill brought forth by Speaker Pelosi and leading House Democrats is 1,990 pages. Not only is it the largest of the health care bills to come out of Congress, it is a whopping 612 pages longer than the 1,368 page Hillarycare bill released in the early 90s. According to a Jonathan Allen of Politico:

· “It runs more pages than War and Peace, has nearly five times as many words as the Torah…”

· “[It] clocks in at 1,990 pages and about 400,000 words. With an estimated 10-year cost of $894 billion, that comes out to about $2.24 million per word.”

· “And for those who cry “read the bill,” beware. There are plenty of paragraphs like this one:

(a) Outpatient Hospitals – (1) In General – Section 1833(t)(3)(C)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(t)(3)(C)(iv)) is amended – (A) in the first sentence – (i) by inserting “(which is subject to the productivity adjustment described in subclause (II) of such section)” after “1886(b)(3)(B)(iii); and (ii) by inserting “(but not below 0)” after “reduced”; and (B) in the second sentence, by inserting “and which is subject, beginning with 2010 to the productivity adjustment described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II)”

· “[T]he bill weighs more than 19 pounds and stands nearly nine inches tall.”

History—as recently as this summer—tells us that the bigger the bill, the more room there is for favors, pet projects, and political shenanigans. As more people read this bill, more dangerous ideas will surely be exposed—which probably explains why Speaker Pelosi wants this Leviathan to come to a vote in the House by next week.

10. With the Pelosi plan, Democrats miss an opportunity to incorporate reforms that make health care more accesible and more affordable for American families.

Noticeably absent from Democrat proposed reform legislation are provisions that would:

· Allow families and businesses to purchase health insurance across state lines:

Currently, individuals who buy their own health insurance can only purchase the mandate laden insurance available in their particular state. Allowing the sale of insurance across state lines empowers individuals by letting them choose from thousands of insurers rather than the handful that meet their state’s regulations. The more insurers that individuals have to choose from, the more selective they will be when buying insurance. This will promote competition among insurance companies and will in turn drive down prices.

· Provide the same opportunities to individuals as are provided to corporations and unions:

The federal government allows large corporations and labor unions to pool together to acquire insurance at reduced prices. It should provide the same opportunity to all citizens by allowing individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together when buying insurance.

· Provide equal tax treatment for all Americans

The current tax code provides employees with incentives to receive their health insurance through their employers. Individuals pay substantially higher prices for health insurance when they purchase it on their own than it would cost their employer—if they have one—largely because of the tax code’s unequal treatment. Fear of losing more affordable insurance ties many individuals to their jobs and makes it less likely that they take the risks necessary to achieve entrepreneurial success. It also means when you lose your job, you often also lose your health insurance. The tax code is unfair and it hurts American citizens. Tax breaks for health insurance need to be nondiscriminatory and apply to all Americans whether they get their health insurance from their employer or not.

· Provide adequate tort reform:

Tort reform is the restructuring of frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits. As of now, 93 percent of American doctors say that a fear of being sued has caused them to practice defensive medicine. This means that American doctors are ordering countless unnecessary procedures that drive up health care costs and waste resources just to make sure they are covered in the event of a lawsuit. Aggressive tort reform will put doctors’ minds at ease and keep them from wasting time and money on unneeded tests.

And these are just a few of the many reasons to oppose the 1,990 page House health care reform bill.

Max Pappas is Vice President, Public Policy and Matthew Clemente is a Researcher

at FreedomWorks Foundation

File Attachments
10-30-09_Top_10_REASONS_TO_OPPOSE_HOUSE_HEALTH_CARE.pdf	347.07 KB

Lawsuit Challenges Restrictions on Marrow Donations

ckinnan@freedomworks.org (Chris Kinnan) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:53:03 +0000

The Institute for Justice filed an historic lawsuit today to fight restrictions on bone marrow donations. Currently those people in need of bone marrow cannot legally provide incentives to encourage potential donors to give marrow. The lawsuit seeks to lift this restriction and allow market incentives to help those in need.

Here's a great video describing the case:

You can also read the IJ press release on the case here.

Dems Health Care "Reform": The more you know, the less you like

ckinnan@freedomworks.org (Chris Kinnan) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 01:12:19 +0000

I’d like to bring your attention to a few interesting articles from recent days which argue strongly against the Democrats’ so-called “reform” of our health care system, particularly if you are not very old or sick:

First, from Tyler Cowen in the New York Times, his article explaining “How an Insurance Mandate Could Leave Many Worse Off." Not only would the proposal force people to buy something they don’t want (more on this below), but the structure of the subsidy package would actually create a disincentive for people to earn more money.

Second, as reported in the Wall Street Journal, WellPoint, one of the nation’s largest health care insurers, has done a series of studies on the likely effect of the Democrats’ plans on health insurance premiums in the 14 states in which they operate. (You can access all 14 reports HERE.) The results are not pretty (for the Democrats). In Colorado (where I live), WellPoint shows the following premium impact based on proposed “reforms". (Note these are “before any adjustment for the increase in medical costs over time.")

	Younger/ Healthy	Average Age/ Average Health	Older/ Less Healthy
Individual	140%	52%	-22%
Small Employer	36%	9%	-9%

In other words, in order to fund a small theoretical decrease in the cost of insurance for the elderly and sick, young healthy people are going to see their health insurance costs explode. And keep in mind that the Democrats’ plans include massive custs to Medicare funding, so the scenario for the “older” segment is far worse than even this analysis appears.

The WellPoint studies are very detailed, showing each component of the cost increases, such as the impact of guaranteed issue, limiting the age discount, and new taxes on health insurers, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals.

With the subsidies built into Democrats plans, people below 200% or 300% of the poverty line may avoid some of the true cost increase, but only by shoving that increase off to the rest of society.

In other words, the Democrats’ plans are, not surprisingly, a massive transfer of wealth system from the young and relatively young who earn a decent living to the old and poor. It has nothing whatsoever to do with controlling health care costs and will in fact make recent years’ health care inflation look like a walk in the park.

And third, the Washington Times again brings up the issue of whether the proposed reforms, particularly a federal mandate requiring people to buy something, are constitutional. While it’s obvious (to me) that the Founders and anyone who understands the Constitution would say such a mandate is clearly unconstitutional, I think a Supreme Court case on the issue would end up 5-4 or 6-3 one way or another.

A particularly interesting aspect of the case would be that even the insane and destructive overbroad interpretation of the commerce clause has always been based on interstate commerce, because “regulating” (i.e. to make regular, not to make all kinds of regulations about, using the language of the time) commerce between the states was the purpose of the language. However, health insurance is explicitly not interstate commerce; insurers are prohibited from selling policies approved in one state across a border into another state. Indeed, making health insurance interstate is one of the most important true reforms we need to make.

The Democrats are losing the public debate over health care reform, despite what their pawns in the media would like you to belive. However, they still have enormous majorities in both houses of Congress and enormous debts to the unions who fund their campaigns. Therefore, it is certainly possible that legislation may pass (probably with fewer GOP votes than you could count on one hand…between both the House and the Senate). If it does, it will spell electoral disaster for the Democrats in 2010. And, reversing the order of impact (i.e. legislation on elections), the election results in New Jersey, New York, and Virginia next week could cause “moderate” Democrats in moderate districts to rethink any possible support for Obamalosireidcus-care.

When even the AP suggests the stimulus isn't working...

ckinnan@freedomworks.org (Chris Kinnan) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 01:10:41 +0000

When even the liberal Associated Press suggests the stimulus isn't working as we're told, you know the bloom is coming off the Obama rose, and Americans are slowly but surely learning the destructive fiscal folly of his economic policies.

In an article reprinted in the Denver Post yesterday entitled "Stimulus jobs overcounted nationwide", two AP reporters lay out details of companies that substantially overstated the number of jobs they claimed to have "saved or created" with stimulus money.

The AP's early conclusion is that at least 1 out of 6 of the so-called 30,000 jobs "saved or created" so far is a fiction.

Let me put my big surprise face on.

Eye opening videos about how Democrats view reform

ckinnan@freedomworks.org (Chris Kinnan) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:48:22 +0000

With a 1990 page bill circulating in the House and the 1502 page Baucus bill still waiting to be merged with the HELP bill in the Senate, it may be difficult for the average American-- and the average congressman-- to fully grasp what Democrats hope health care reform will accomplish. In order to do so, it may be useful to examine what Democrats have previously said about reform. The following videos reveal some shocking truths about what Democrat proposed reform might achieve:

FreedomWorks denied access to Pelosi press conference

ckinnan@freedomworks.org (Chris Kinnan) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:51:34 +0000

Earlier today, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.) held a press conference to announce the release of House Democrats' version of health care reform legislation. At 1,990 pages, the new bill is by far the largest reform proposals to come out of Congress. It is a whopping 612 pages longer than the 1,368 page Hillarycare bill released in the early 90s.

FreedomWorks attended this morning's event. Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi and Democratic leadership decided to only allow supporters of the proposal--mostly Hill staffers-- near the stage in front of the steps of the Capitol building. Barricades were put in place to prevent the public from getting anywhere near the podium and the hundred plus protesters that joined us were forced by Capitol police to remain silent. We were told that if we yelled out in an attempt to make our voices heard, we would be arrested. We were also told that if we congregated in groups of 20 or more, we would be forced to disperse.

This was clearly another attempt by Congressional Democrats to silence opposition and ignore the voice of the people who they are elected to represent.

A detailed summary of the House bill can be read here.

Section by section analysis can be read here.

And a timeline of how the bill will be implemented can be seen here.

File Attachments
HCR_Complete_Summary.pdf	431 KB
HCR_Section_by_Section.doc	369 KB
HCR_Timeline.pdf	377.63 KB

Voter Ed in Virginia

ckinnan@freedomworks.org (Chris Kinnan) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:12:36 +0000

Not sure how to spend your rainy fall weekend coming up? FreedomWorks has your fun right here. We recommend a vigorous constitutional with some voter education on the side. To that end, we've prepared this nifty, half-sheet candidate side-by-side on the Governor's race - suitable for printing out, cutting in half, and distributing to your friends, neighbors, and random passersby.

Knock yourselves out.

File Attachments
VAGovsidebyside.pdf	859.46 KB

Dems. are their own worst enemy

ckinnan@freedomworks.org (Chris Kinnan) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:00:04 +0000

As Democrats reveal in greater detail which provisions will actually be included in health care legislation, the division within the Democratic Caucus becomes increasingly evident. Most recently, the split has come between those who share the views of liberal House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calfi.):

Any real change requires the inclusion of a strong public option to promote competition and bring down costs...

and those who share the views of moderate Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La.):

I have not been in favor of a government run option...

If such conflicting perspectives continue to exist within the Democratic Caucus, it may be Democrats--not Republicans-- who block the passage of health care reform.

In a Monday afternoon press conference, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced that the Senate's version of health care legislation will include a public option that would allow states to opt out of benefits (though, such states would still see their tax dollars go to funding the program in other states). The inclusion of the public option has caused a great deal of unrest among those who vote Democrat.

A day after hearing Reid's proposal, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.)--who caucuses with Democrats-- revealed his distaste for the plan:

I can’t see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company. It’s just asking for trouble – in the end, the taxpayers are going to pay and probably all people who have health insurance are going to see their premiums go up because there’s going to be cost shifting as there has been for Medicare and Medicaid.

Even worse for Reid's proposal, Lieberman told reporters that he is not the only member of the Democratic Caucus who opposes the current legislation. According to the Senator from Connecticut, the number of Democrats who have some problem with it "actually goes to double figures, at different levels of intensity."

Senator Landrieu stated, "I'm skeptical about what Senator Reid has proposed," and Senator Nelson (D-Neb.) is refusing to support legislation until he reads it.

All of this spells trouble for the Democrats, who have a 60 seat majority that would otherwise be enough to push health care legislation through the Senate.

Unable to find a happy medium between differing views, it seems--for now at least-- that Democrats are their own worst enemy.

NTU: "The Opt-Out Cop Out"

ckinnan@freedomworks.org (Chris Kinnan) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:55:11 +0000

Andrew Moylan, over at National Taxpayers Union, notes a serious problem with Sen. Reid's new health care plan and the supposedly optional public option.

But here's the fine print:
"Those taxes and others required to fund the $6 billion public option would be collected from all states, including those that opt out of the plan."
Read that one more time. The massive tax increases associated with this bill, on the order of a half-trillion dollars, will apply to EVERYONE regardless of whether or not their state has opted out. There is no comfort in the opt out provision, no shelter from the tentacles of government reaching inexorably into our health care decisions. Why opt out if you'll have to pay all the taxes but get none of the services (inefficient though they may be)?

Read the whole thing.

Conservative health care reform plans

ckinnan@freedomworks.org (Chris Kinnan) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:40:51 +0000

Liberals have claimed that conservatives favor "the status quo" when it comes to health care reform. President Obama uses this straw man argument all the time. But check out the Republican Study Committee's list of health reform proposals that have been put forward.

Just because the left ignores conservative ideas for health care reform, it doesn't mean that these ideas don't exist.

FreedomWorks Praises Blackburn Bill on Net Neutrality

ckinnan@freedomworks.org (Chris Kinnan) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:00:00 +0000

Today, Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced H.R. 3294, the Real Stimulus Act of 2009, which would prevent the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from enacting net neutrality regulations. The bill comes in the wake of a recent FCC decision to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking in favor of net neutrality. “The internet is the last truly open public marketplace. Its openness is the key to its efficiency and success,” said Blackburn in an accompanying press release. “Not all public spaces need to be regulated spaces. Indeed, federal regulation has a long history of making the market less efficient.”

Should the FCC impose new rules that expand government control over the internet, innovation will be stifled and investment in this important sector of our economy will decline. In order to keep the internet truly free, questions of network management need to be left up to those who built the networks and not bureaucrats at the FCC. Already, the FCC has ample authority to address any concerns that may arise over internet access. There have been few problems to date, and the FCC handled them on a case-by-case basis. The call for a sweeping new set of regulations is not warranted.

“Growth in the broadband sector provides a great opportunity for economic recovery without government intervention,” said Dick Armey, Chairman of FreedomWorks. “H.R. 3294 is a step in the right direction toward getting the government out of the way.”

For more information please contact FreedomWorks Press Secretary Adam Brandon at 202-942-7698.

Do Dems. plan to bailout yet another industry?

ckinnan@freedomworks.org (Chris Kinnan) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:35:36 +0000

During a July press conference on health care reform, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) stated:

I’m very pleased that our Chair of our Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and members of the leadership will be talking too about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry...

But if the reforms being pushed by Democrats become law, then the "immoral profits" seen by the health insurance industry will dramatically increase. This past summer, President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers reported that the average annual premium for individual coverage is $4,321. If the 46 million uninsured are required to purchase health insurance--which they will be under the individual mandate included in Democrat reform proposals-- then the insurance industry stands to make up to $200 billion in new insurance premiums per year. Insurers are also set to receive $463 billion in taxpayer subsidies over the next 10 years under the Baucus Bill.

Such major profits would certainly help an industry which does not even rank within the top 30 Fortune 500 industries. According to Calvin Woodward of the Associated Press:

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better — drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

In his article, FACT CHECK: Health insurer profits not so fat, Woodward compares the profits seen by insurers to those seen by other industry leaders. With a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, the insurance industry's profit margin was far less than:

Network and other communications equipment's 20.4 percent profit margin
The railroads' 12.6 percent profit margin
Clorox's 8.7 percent profit margin
Yum Brands' (KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell) 8.5 percent profit margin
Molson Coors Brewing's 8.1 percent profit margin
Tupperware Brand's 7.5 percent profit margin
Hershey's 6.1 percent profit margin
Yahoo's 5.9 percent profit margin

In an attempt to reverse such trends and capitalize on reform, the insurance industry has shelled out $1.4 million a day on lobbying. So far, that money has been well spent; reform could mean big bucks for insurers.

Who knew that when Speaker Pelosi said that Democrats were addressing the "immoral profits" made by health insurance providers, she was actually talking about helping them make more money?

What is there to hide? Dems craft reform "behind closed doors"

ckinnan@freedomworks.org (Chris Kinnan) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:59:19 +0000

During his campaign, then-Candidate Obama promised to usher in a new era of transparency. Americans, he said, would finally be welcomed in to the world government. They would be able to see what really goes on in Washington. Speaking of health care reform, Mr. Obama said:

... and we'll have the negotiations televised on CSPAN so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who is making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.

Now, however, Democrats are "huddling behind closed doors" in an attempt to leave the American people out of the process. According to Christina Bellantoni of TPM, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and other top Democrats have been meeting in private with White House advisors in an effort to create a bill that will attract the votes of 60 of their colleagues in the Senate.

The group is under pressure to get a deal done quickly, but they also are attempting to avoid the media spotlight as dozens of reporters camp outside Reid's senate office... White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was pushed during his briefing today on whether Obama was really meeting his transparency pledge since these meetings are shrouded from the public.

"The merging of two committee bills is just one step along a long process," he said. "And I think the American people have -- have gotten quite a bit of news coverage on this topic."

A new video released by the House Republican Conference entitled “Behind Closed Doors” points to the fact that mere "news coverage" is not what the President promised during his campaign. He promised transparency. He promised a seat at the table. And the lack thereof has many Americans asking, "What have Democrats got to hide?"

FreedomWorks Event in Richmond, VA

ckinnan@freedomworks.org (Chris Kinnan) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:37:28 +0000

Dick Armey and John Taylor talk about the tea party movement, healthcare, cap and tax, and other issues

FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey will be coming to Richmond at the Europa Cafe (1409 E Cary St, Richmond) on October 29th at 6pm. He will be discussing the Tea Party movement, healthcare, cap and tax, among other relevant issues. The event will also feature Doc Thompson of WRVA-Richmond and John Taylor of The Virginia Institute and Tertium Quids. John Taylor will focus on issues central to Virginia - a critical state in the upcoming election.

Since February, the Tea Party movement has been steadily gaining momentum, with countless events in all fifty states. FreedomWorks has been a strong supporter of the events, helping to organize what become one of the largest political marches in DC history - the 9/12 Taxpayer March on Washington.

"I am excited to be going down to support the limited government movement in Richmond," says FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey. Armey is fresh off a visit to Syracuse, New York, where FreedomWorks is in engaged in a issue education campaign surrounding the 23rd Congressional District Special Election that will be held on November 3rd.

FreedomWorks is determined to promote limited government and personal responsibility by exposing the real threats posed by the administration’s health care reform plan and cap and trade bill.

FreedomWorks is a grassroots organization with over 800,000 members nationwide dedicated to lower taxes, less government, and more freedom.

Proposed FCC Regulations May Raise Concerns about Internet Freedom

ckinnan@freedomworks.org (Chris Kinnan) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:36:37 +0000

Today, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski announced that the Commission will issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to examine the possibility of new regulations to ensure open access to the internet. The proposed rules will examine the issue of “net neutrality,” codifying and expanding existing policies on internet regulations.

“The proposed rules raise significant questions about the future development of the internet and the continued deployment of broadband networks,” said Wayne Brough, chief economist at FreedomWorks. “In essence, new rules could give the FCC the authority to regulate the internet.”

Not only will the FCC’s notice of proposed rulemaking strengthen the government’s control over the internet, but the rulemaking raises the possibility of expanding the regulations to cover the emerging wireless networks, a dynamic and competitive sector of the market that has provided consumers expanded services and falling prices. New mandates could limit this growth and reduce consumer welfare.

“Consumers should be concerned about the addition of new regulations that could reshape the internet,” said Brough. “There have been few incidents of problems in the past, and the FCC has ample authority to address any problems on a case-by-case basis should they emerge. To promote continued expansion of the internet, it is important to encourage capital investment and increased competition. Net neutrality regulations do neither.

“Net neutrality boils down to a classic debate over how investment will be determined—by the market or by regulators. Time and again, the market has proved a more efficient way to allocate resources, deliver services, and promote the innovation required to create the next generation of technology. As the internet matures and new content and applications require new functionality, we want to be sure that stifling regulations do not deter the expansion of the networks required to bring these services to consumers.”

FreedomWorks will be active in this rulemaking process, and encourage our activists nationwide to make their voices heard in this important debate over the future of the internet.

Health Care Reform's Biggest Winners and Losers

ckinnan@freedomworks.org (Chris Kinnan) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:15:19 +0000

The FreedomWorks Foundation recently published a Capitol Comments article exploring the winners and losers of health care reform.

To download a PDF of this article, please click here.

With a complete overhaul of the American health care system being considered by Congress, who will gain the most from reform and who will lose?

BIG WINNERS:

The Health Insurance Industry: In most of the current health care reform proposals, the federal government will mandate and subsidize private health insurance. Such plans will serve insurers as many as 46 million new customers on a silver platter and then also help pick up the bill. Taking into consideration the fact that this past summer President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers reported the average annual premium for individual coverage as $4,321, reform could mean as much as $200 billion in new premiums per year for the insurance industry. They will also receive $463 billion in taxpayer subsidies over the next 10 years under the Baucus proposal.
The Pharmaceutical Industry: While on the campaign trail, President Obama endorsed certain reform efforts that would promote competition among drug companies and lower prescription drug costs for American families. He called for reforms such as allowing the re-importation of drugs, increasing the use of generic drugs, and repealing the ban on direct negotiation of drug prices between Medicare and drug companies to help drive down prices. None of these reforms appear in the Baucus proposal or H.R. 3200. In place of the real change that President Obama promised to bring to the American drug market, the proposals in Congress offer an individual mandate that will require and subsidize the purchase of health insurance. If such subsidized insurance plans include coverage of prescription drug costs, drug sales will skyrocket and the industry will see extraordinary, subsidized profits.
AARP: AARP makes nearly $700 million per year from selling Medicare products. In an attempt to lower the price tag, the Baucus proposal cuts $117 billion from the popular Medicare Advantage plan which allows seniors to purchase coverage beyond traditional Medicare. Forcing seniors back into the traditional Medicare program would provide AARP with millions of new customers and a major increase in profits.

BIG LOSERS:

Seniors: $426 billion or 47% of the total costs of the Baucus plan are supposedly off set by cuts to Medicare coverage. Of that $426 billion, $117 billion will come from cuts in the Medicare Advantage plan which offers one out of every five senior citizens more benefits than traditional Medicare. Also, the Baucus plan assumes that Medicare physician payments will be cut by 25% in 2011 and even more in years to come. Such cuts may cause doctors to drop Medicare coverage forcing seniors to change their physicians and cause non-Medicare prices to rise in an attempt to make up the difference.
The American Economy: The federal deficit is projected to be $1.4 trillion in 2009. Not only is that a trillion dollars higher than in 2008 and the highest percent of GDP--10 percent-- since World War II, it is also the highest the nation's deficit has ever been. And, with unemployment reaching 9.8% in September, a higher percentage of Americans are out of work now than at any other point over the past 26 years. Simply put, now is not the time to spend money that America does not have.

THE BIGGEST LOSER:

The American People:
- Taxes: With the price tag for each major reform effort coming in at close to $1 trillion, someone is going to have to foot the bill. Will it be the insurers and drug companies? Nope. We have already discussed how much money they stand to make as a result of reform. Will it be businesses and corporations? Wrong again. Businesses have always passed expensive tax burdens on to customers and employees in the form of higher prices and lower wages. Will it be the government? The government gets its money from taxes collected from American citizens. The correct answer is the American people will pay for it. The federal government expects to generate revenue from tax increases that include but are not limited to:
  - $201 billion in taxes levied against health insurance plans.
  - $180 billion in taxes levied against insurers, pharmaceutical companies and the medical device industry which will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
  - $83 billion in new income taxes which the government predicts will result from more employers offering employees taxable wages rather than non-taxable health insurance.
  - $23 billion in employer penalties which will be paid by employees in the form of lower wages.
  - $4 billion in penalties paid to the IRS by those who do not purchase insurance.
- Premiums: Under the Baucus plan, Americans' insurance premiums will rise. In a recent hearing held before the Senate Finance Committee, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf stated, “Our judgment is that that piece of the legislation would raise insurance premiums.” A new study conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers entitled Potential Impact of Health Reform on the Cost of Private Health Insurance Coverage echoes Elmendorf’s claim. It asserts that by 2019 the cost of coverage for a single adult will increase by $1,500 more than it would under the current system.
- Mandate: Most reform proposals include an individual mandate which will make every American purchase health insurance. Citizens will be forced—at times against their will—to buy insurance, not because of something that they have done but simply because they are alive. Non-compliance with this mandate could result in harsh fines which are considered "taxes." Forget to pay such a "tax" and you could be fined an additional $25,000 and even face up to a year in jail.

Capitol Comment Number 431

ckinnan@freedomworks.org (Chris Kinnan) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:13:05 +0000

Health Care Reform’s Biggest Winners and Losers

Author (optional):

Matthew J Clemente

To download a PDF of this article, please click here.

With a complete overhaul of the American health care system being considered by Congress, who will lose?

BIG WINNERS:

The Health Insurance Industry: In most of the current health care reform proposals, the federal government will mandate and subsidize private health insurance. Such plans will serve insurers as many as 46 million new customers on a silver platter and then also help pick up the bill. Taking into consideration the fact that this past summer President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers reported the average annual premium for individual coverage as $4,321(1), reform could mean as much as $200 billion in new premiums per year for the insurance industry. They will also receive $463 billion(2) in taxpayer subsidies over the next 10 years under the Baucus proposal.
The Pharmaceutical Industry: While on the campaign trail, President Obama endorsed certain reform efforts that would promote competition among drug companies and lower prescription drug costs for American families. He called for reforms such as allowing the re-importation of drugs, increasing the use of generic drugs, and repealing the ban on direct negotiation of drug prices between Medicare and drug companies to help drive down prices. None of these reforms appear in the Baucus proposal or H.R. 3200. In place of the real change that President Obama promised to bring to the American drug market, the proposals in Congress offer an individual mandate that will require and subsidize the purchase of health insurance. If such subsidized insurance plans include coverage of prescription drug costs, drug sales will skyrocket and the industry will see extraordinary, subsidized profits.
AARP: AARP makes nearly $700 million per year(3) from selling Medicare products. In an attempt to lower the price tag, the Baucus proposal cuts $117 billion(4) from the popular Medicare Advantage plan which allows seniors to purchase coverage beyond traditional Medicare. Forcing seniors back into the traditional Medicare program would provide AARP with millions of new customers and a major increase in profits.

BIG LOSERS:

Seniors: $426 billion or 47%(5) of the total costs of the Baucus plan are supposedly off set by cuts to Medicare coverage. Of that $426 billion, $117 billion(6) will come from cuts in the Medicare Advantage plan which offers one out of every five senior citizens more benefits than traditional Medicare. Also, the Baucus plan assumes that Medicare physician payments will be cut by 25% in 2011 and even more in years to come. Such cuts may cause doctors to drop Medicare coverage forcing seniors to change their physicians and cause non-Medicare prices to rise in an attempt to make up the difference.
The American Economy: The federal deficit is projected to be $1.4 trillion in 2009(7). Not only is that a trillion dollars higher than in 2008 and the highest percent of GDP--10 percent-- since World War II, it is also the highest the nation's deficit has ever been(8). And, with unemployment reaching 9.8% in September, a higher percentage of Americans are out of work now than at any other point over the past 26 years. Simply put, now is not the time to spend money that America does not have.

THE BIGGEST LOSER:

The American People:
- Taxes: With the price tag for each major reform effort coming in at close to $1 trillion, someone is going to have to foot the bill. Will it be the insurers and drug companies? Nope. We have already discussed how much money they stand to make as a result of reform. Will it be businesses and corporations? Wrong again. Businesses have always passed expensive tax burdens on to customers and employees in the form of higher prices and lower wages. Will it be the government? The government gets its money from taxes collected from American citizens. The correct answer is the American people will pay for it. The federal government expects to generate revenue from tax increases that include but are not limited to(9):
  - $201 billion in taxes levied against health insurance plans.
  - $180 billion in taxes levied against insurers, pharmaceutical companies and the medical device industry which will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
  - $83 billion in new income taxes which the government predicts will result from more employers offering employees taxable wages rather than non-taxable health insurance
  - $23 billion in employer penalties which will be paid by employees in the form of lower wages
  - $4 billion in penalties paid to the IRS by those who do not purchase insurance.
- Premiums: Under the Baucus plan, Americans' insurance premiums will rise. In a recent hearing held before the Senate Finance Committee, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf stated, “Our judgment is that that piece of the legislation would raise insurance premiums.”(10) A new study conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers entitled Potential Impact of Health Reform on the Cost of Private Health Insurance Coverage echoes Elmendorf’s claim. It asserts that by 2019 the cost of coverage for a single adult will increase by $1,500 more than it would under the current system(11).
- Mandate: Most reform proposals include an individual mandate which will make every American purchase health insurance. Citizens will be forced—at times against their will—to buy insurance, not because of something that they have done but simply because they are alive. Non-compliance with this mandate could result in harsh fines which are considered "taxes." Forget to pay such a "tax" and you could be fined an additional $25,000 and even face up to a year in jail(12).

1. United States of America. Council of Economic Advisors. Executive Office of the President. The Economic Case for Health Care Reform. Washington DC, 2009. Print.

2. United States of America. Congressional Budget Office. Letter to Senator Max Baucus. By Douglas W. Elemdorf. Washington DC, 2009. Print.

3. Novack, Eric. "In health care debate, many sides are fighting for spoils." The Washington Examiner [Washington DC] 21 Oct. 2009, Commentary sec.: 23. Print.

4. "The Greatest Show on Earth." The Wall Street Journal [New York City] 9 Oct. 2009, Opinion sec.: A18. Print.

5. Ferrechio, Susan. "Health care tab to be paid by taxpayers, businesses, seniors." The Washington Examiner [Washington DC] 9 Oct. 2009, Politics sec. Print.

6. Ibid.

7. Ambrose, Jason. "How much is a trillion dollars?" The Washington Examiner [Washington DC] 21 Oct. 2009, Commentary sec.: 21. Print.

8. Ibid.

9. Ferrechio, Susan. "Health care tab to be paid by taxpayers, businesses, seniors." The Washington Examiner [Washington DC] 9 Oct. 2009, Politics sec. Print.

10. Finance. Web. 21 Oct. 2009. <http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/hearings.htm>.

11. Potential Impact of Health Reform on the Cost of Private Health Insurance Coverage. Rep. 1st ed. PriceWaterHouseCoopers, 2009. Print.

12. Politics, Political News - POLITICO.com. Web. 21 Oct. 2009. <http://www.politico.com/static/PPM110_090925_document2.html>.

File Attachments
capitol_comment_winners_losers.pdf	188.95 KB

Lord Monckton on the Copenhagen Treaty

ckinnan@freedomworks.org (Chris Kinnan) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:47:12 +0000

First, a little background on Lord Monckton. He was a Maggie Thatcher adviser. He's an environmental policy wonk of the highest order, and a master of converting knowledge to action. He sued to prevent Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" from being forced into British classrooms... and won. The judge ordered that 9 serious inaccuracies in the film be corrected. Lord Mockton travels the globe to educate people on the myth of global warming.

Now, watch this.

An excerpt (via Michelle Malkin):

Here is why the truth matters. It was all very well for jesting Pilate to ask that question and then not to tarry for an answer. But that question that he asked, “what is the truth?” is the question which underlies every question and in the end it is the only question that really matters. When you ask that question what you are really asking is “what is the truth about the matter?” And we are now going to see why it matters morally, socially, and politically, as well as economically and scientifically. That the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth should inform public policy on this question.

And now for the scariest part, From GlobalClimateScam.com:

There has been considerable debate raised about Monckton’s conclusion that the Copenhagen Treaty would cede US sovereignty. His comments appear to be based upon his interpretation of the The Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 2). This clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. TREATIES as the supreme law of the land. Concerns have been raised in the past that a particularly ambitious treaty may supersede the US Constitution. In the 1950s, a constitutional amendment, known as the Bricker Amendment, was proposed in response to such fears, but it failed to pass. You can read more about the Bricker Amendment in a 1953 Time Magazine article.

Click here to watch Lord Monckton’s entire speech (it's an hour and a half long) in which he annihilates global warming claims.(you can follow his power point with this pdf).

Click here to read a draft copy of the treaty.

Click here to see Obama’s speech to the UN on Climate Change.

More video: Minnesota Majority’s interview with Lord Monckton [Part 1] [Part 2]

Click here to sign a petition opposing cap-and-trade.

Stimulus Failing: 49 States Lose Jobs

ckinnan@freedomworks.org (Chris Kinnan) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:02:55 +0000

Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Dave Camp (R-MI), released data which compares the White House’s projected job gains as a result of the stimulus and current change in employment.

The comparison reveals that “49 States and the District of Columbia have lost jobs since [the] stimulus was enacted.” The White House predicted 3.4 million jobs would result from the stimulus. Instead, the country has lost more than 2.7 million jobs. In total, White House projections were off by more than 6 million jobs nationwide. The lone state that saw a rise of jobs was North Dakota with 1,800. That figure is 22% of the White House projection of 8,000 new jobs, which was in a four-way tie for the lowest amount of jobs projected for a state.

Key Statistics

8: Number of states with six figure job loss
11: Number of states with six figure estimates for job creation
19: Number of states with six figure difference from White House projection

Top Five States with the Most Job Loss

California: 336,400
Texas: 225,300
Florida: 165,100
Illinois: 148,900
Michigan: 137,300

Top Five States Farthest from White House Job Projections

California: 732,400
Texas: 494,300
Florida: 371,100
New York: 326,800
Illinois: 296,900

Bipartisan effort stops misleading health care spending

ckinnan@freedomworks.org (Chris Kinnan) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:06:58 +0000

This morning, FreedomWorks joined a coalition made up of 20 groups representing the concerns of millions of Americans and also sent a KEY VOTE notice to Senators on Capitol Hill asking them to vote "NO" on cloture for S. 1776, the Medicare Physician Fairness Act of 2009. Cloture is a process aimed at bringing debate to a quick end in order to bring the actual legislation to a vote.

Apparently lawmakers got the message because this afternoon a bipartisan majority of Senators rejected cloture for legislation that would have added nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars to the national deficit over the next 10 years. Introduced by Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), S. 1776 would have spent an additional $247 billion in taxpayer money on reimbursements for physicians through Medicare. While--under the proper circumstances-- a "doc fix" such as this has some merit as a means of keeping physicians from abandoning the Medicare program, S. 1776 contained no spending reductions to offset its considerable cost. A "yes" vote would have required Senators to vote to waive their own budget rules which are intended to protect taxpayers. Even worse, the bill brought forth by Democratic leadership would have served as a deceptive way of reducing the perceived cost of future health care reform legislation.

On October 7th, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of one such piece of legislation. The so-called "Baucus bill" received a 10-year cost estimate of $829 billion. It owes its score, in part, to the reduction of $200 billion in physician reimbursements through Medicare that exist within the legislation. The savings in the Baucus plan are almost the exact equivalent of the cost of S. 1776. The passage of S. 1776 would have negated reductions in the Baucus plan without adding to the perceived cost of reform. This deception explains why the Baucus proposal was estimated to cost less than a trillion dollars and also why it was estimated to reduce the deficit.

Splitting higher reimbursements into a separate piece of legislation was an underhanded attempt by Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Democratic leadership to deceive Americans about the true cost of their health care overhaul. Thankfully, Senators from both sides of the aisle joined together in a bipartisan effort to prevent cloture of S. 1776. After today's crucial vote, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had this to say:

In the Senate’s first vote on health care spending this year, a bipartisan majority rejected the Democrat Leadership's attempt to add another quarter trillion dollars to the national credit card without any plan to pay for it. With a record deficit and a ballooning national debt, the American people are saying enough is enough. Today's vote shows that this message is finally starting to get through to Congress. Hopefully it's a sign of things to come in the health care debate ahead.

Below are the 53 Senators who voted NO to cloture for the Medicare Physician Fairness Act of 2009. They deserve to be recognized for their commitment to a fair and open health care debate:

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)