Stupak cannot stop anti life wave on HC

Here is what pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak said about the current Healthcare bill. Very said what this has come to:

What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

Update- Healthcare Reform

As of March 11th, there is probably at best a 50/50 chance of reconciliation going through on the healthcare bill. Now that the Democrats don't have the necessary votes in the Senate, they are going to use the parliamentary procedure of the nuclear option (reconciliation) to move forward. The problem is, the House of Representatives has to vote on the Senate's bill in order for it to pass. There no longer can be a merging of the House and Senate Bills, now that the Senate can't muster 60 votes to sustain a possible filibuster. Because of this, the House has to go along with what the Senate bill contains. The importance of this is all of the pro-life Democrats who only voted for the House bill last time because of the Stupak (Bart Stupak) amendment stating that no public funds can be used for abortion, cannot possibly be included in the Senate bill. So Stupak and other conservative Democrats are most likely not going to vote "yea" on Healthcare reform, as they did last time around.

So in addition to the other 25 or so Democrats who voted "nay" last vote in November to make the passage at 220-215, the numbers look upside down at this point for Democrats. When you look at the 220 who voted for Obamacare in the House in November, 2 members have retired, one has died, and the sole Republican is switching to a "nay" vote. In the other hand, one previous "nay" vote (Eric Massa- D) has left the House on ethical charges of groping a staffer. So because of these defections, Democrats still need 216 to pass it. As of many reports, there are about 200-203 who have said yes, and many of the persuadable Democrats teetering. Because of all of this, the likelihood of it passing is less than 50%. However, in the vastly unpopular Cap and Trade bill last year, Speaker Pelosi was about 20 votes short of passage the day before the vote. Because of her strong arming and dealing, she was able to muscle it through by 3 votes. So Republicans and skeptics alike, are not underestimating Pelosi's potential pull on unsure Democrats.

One more caveat to throw in the ringer- Liberals who have demanded a single payer public plan or else they would flee, are starting to bark. As of now, we know Dennis Kucinic is a "nay" vote because the bill doesn't go far enough. The Hispanic, Black, and Progressive Caucuses in the Democrat party are all whining that they may change their vote on protest. But not many serious thinkers really think Pelosi can't or won't get them in lockstep, especially if the bill is close.

Last thing to address- Many in the media and many Democrats have stated that the Hyde Amendment (disallowing public funds for abortion, except in rape, incest, etc.) makes it impossible for public funds to be used for abortions. This is plainly untrue. There are several provisions which indeed make them available. This includes Obama's 11 Billion dollar plan in the bill that would go toward community and Health Centers. Although it doesn't say these funds would be for abortion, it doesn't say that they CANNOT be used for abortions. There are a few other tricks in the bill that allow back end ways to allow funds to be used for abortion. In case Democrats think only Republicans think this is the case, here's a few remarks from Democrats regarding the current Senate bill:

Tim Holden (D-Penn) "I will not vote for the Senate bill," Holden said. "It makes significant cuts to Medicare and Medicaid ... and the restrictions on (federal funding for) abortion are not as strong."
Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio) "Last fall, I worked to pass legislation to bring needed changes to our health care system, while putting in place strict prohibitions on the use of taxpayer funding for abortion. The House will soon take up this issue again. When there is a final piece of legislation, I will take the time needed to review the bill and determine how I will vote. However, my overall position is unchanged. Health care reform is critically important for our nation, and I support efforts to enact changes to our system - if those changes are done the right way. But I'm firm in my commitment that I won't support legislation that provides federal funding for abortion."
Joe Donnolly (D-IN) "language on abortion is a "fatal flaw." I would not vote for it," he said. He figures there will be a vote within a month or so. The abortion language is unpopular with "a significant" number of congressmen. It has the potential to kill the bill, he said.
Dan :Lipinski (D-Ill) His advisor: "No. Congressman Lipinski will not vote for a health care bill that provides federal funding for abortion."

Justice Department hires 9 terrorist lawyers

Eric Holder, who heads the Justice Department as the Attorney General, has hired 9 lawyers to the Department who have defended Islamic terrorists. This seems to be pretty atrocious. So a lawyer who has defended the mastermind behind 9/11, KSM, is now working for our Justice Department. These lawyers seem to have some sort of sympathy of these captured terrorists, in believing they have access to US miranda rights, even though that is just not true.

Whatever the case, this seems to be pretty radical, even on the surface.

Constitution and buying HC Insurance

Is it constitutional for us to be forced to buy healthcare insurance? And if we don't, we'll be fined. So where in the constitution does it talk about the ability for the government to force citizens to buy insurance.

I'm no constitutional lawyer and don't understand every little thing. However, when reading the constitution, I didn't come across language that allows the government to enforce such things as telling its citizens it has to buy any sort of goods or services.

More on Healthcare and the Summit

The Healthcare Summit raised a lot of interesting points. The main one being, there is just a philosophical difference in how government should be looked at. Liberals, and thus Democrats, believe there should be an overriding central authority that supercedes any marketplace idea. This includes the following things, among others: that every adult has to acquire health insurance, or get penalized for it (do we actually get arrested for this?); that employers will get fined 8% if they don't have any of their employees covered; that Washington bureaucrats get to decide what constitutes as acceptable coverage for any US citizen.

One of the things that has struck me is how little people have discussed how Washington cannot manage any entitlement programs anywhere close to what the financial estimates become. For instance, the Medicare program when it was introduced way back when, was supposed to be just a sliver of what it has turned out to be. If you look at the following federal run programs, it doesn't take a liberal genious (oxymoron?) to figure that the government struggles mightily with doing business: US Postal Service- Projected 800 Billion deficit this year (UPS and FedEx are wildly successful); Social Security- Going to be insolvent at any time; Medicare- Going to be insolvent before we retire.

The Conservative way is much better. This includes the following things:

• Tort Reform. The CBO estimates this could save as much as $50 Billion per year in medical malpractice savings.
• Ability to Buy across state lines. The would allow all of the insurance providers to compete for your business. In essence, the consumer can go with the most affordable price, no matter what state it is located in.
• Buy from Imported Drugs from Canada. This was a bipartisan agreemlent, but apparently, not bipartisan enough as it was not included in the current House or Senate bills.
• Healthcare Savings Accounts. This idea was brandished by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, and it is overwhelmingly popular and successful. This allows a family to have, say, $2,500 put into their healthcare kitty. From there, a family gets to choose how it spends its money on care. This plan does have provisions in case of catastrophic conditions occur, which really helps the consumer. This plan gives control to the consumer, not the government. A similar plan was offered by McCain in the 08 campaign.

An article by Economist Thomas Sowell also makes a great point about how all of these estimates fly in the face of reality. As he calls it, Alice in Wonderland. The main point he makes is how they are making estimates based on what kind of medical services we use when we have to pay for all of its costs. If the government were to take over, people would be going in for about every reason imaginable. Say for instance I got a skin rash and I was in line before someone who may have a potentially cancerous tumor. That person would have to wait in extraordinarily long lines while the people in the front of the line would get helped first. And back to the original point here, the costs would go up extravagantly because people would be making "free" doctor or ER visits, when they otherwise wouldn't have gone. Sowell says that "bureaucratic rationing is then imposed, to replace self-rationing."

Healthcare gimmicks on Democrats plan

Health Care Gimmicks:

As Republican Congressman Paul Ryan and Senator Chuck Grassley stated in the Healthcare Summit, there are many gimmicks and "smoke and mirrors" in the current Senate Healthcare plan. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is the source that scores these plans. Here are a few examples of this:

• The way the bill was written to the CBO, we start paying for this in taxes in 2010, while the actual plan starts in 2014. In other words, the CBO scored the first 10 years of raising the capital, while only the final six years of this period has the plan implemented. So 10 years of taxes and 6 years of usage. After the first 10 years, the cost curve goes dramatically up, some independent estimates having the plan costing us 2.5 Trillion during the second 10 years.
• Using either the House or Senate Bill, the true costs of 10 years of revenue (taxes, cuts in Medicare, etc.) and 10 years of the healthcare plan, the real cost is over 2.3 Trillion. And this is NOT including what is known as the "Doc Fix", explained below. If it was included, we can add on another 200 Billion or so to the total cost.
  
• The current plan has Medicare cuts- Does anyone really believe we will have 500 Million Dollars in Medicare cuts? Everytime this puts into legislation (by Republican or Democrat), these funds do NOT get slashed from Medicare. It just won't happen. But in order for Obama's plan to work according to the budge guidelines, this had to be included.
• "Doc Fix". Instead of having a reduction in Medicare doctor fees by 21% going into effect, and thus hurting the bills numbers, both the House and Senate used this in a separate bill. However, these non-cuts still have to be considered in the whole "cost curve". Instead, Democrats think they can put all of the non-cash savers into another bill so it cannot be scored in a negative way by the CBO.
  

Warren Buffets says start over on Healthcare

This line seems very familiar to what Republicans have been saying. Scratch this bill... not because Republicans don't like it... scrap it because the vast majority of AMERICANS don't like it. When, for the past three months, the polls have averaged -15% support for Obamacare, things need to start over.

What's remarkable about Buffet's comment is not that he's in any way an expert on healthcare, he's not. It's that he's a big supporter of Obama. When it comes to domestic policy, you don't hear Obama use any name more prevalent than Buffet, other than maybe former Fed Chair Paul Volcker.

The politics side of me wants Obamacare to go forward. This way the Democrats will be massacred in November. But the bill is just giving way too much control to Washington, which of course Obama wants (even if he denies it).