Radioactive Communist Zombies

The Ram-Through

After today's "Health Reform Summit" (which I caught about 10 minutes of while getting ready for work) the Democrats are going to ram through health care deform whether you like it or not.  Senator Bill Frist writing in the Wall Street Journal says doing on a 51-vote "reconciliation" is a bad idea:

Using the budget reconciliation procedure to pass health-care reform would be unprecedented because Congress has never used it to adopt major, substantive policy change. The Senate's health bill is without question such a change: It would fundamentally alter one-fifth of our economy.

But the Democrats want health care deform . . . badly.  Badly enough to defy the American people who don't want this reform (they want something to get better, they just don't know what).  The Democrats want this because a) it's a power grab of 1/5th the economy under government (meaning their) control and b) once everyone is dependent on the government for health care, it will almost guarantee a permanent Democrat majority as Republicans will be seen as the party of "no health care funding" while the Democrats can pay for health care with borrowed money at least for a while.  But as Margret Thatcher said: the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

If the Democrats vote through health care deform on 51 votes, we have to vote the bums out and put in Republicans to repeal it.

What Happens When We're All On Medicare?

(Hat Tip Instapundit)

A Mayo Clinic in Arizona is refusing to take more Medicare patients.  As Bloomberg reports:

The Mayo Clinic, praised by President Barack Obama as a national model for efficient health care, will stop accepting Medicare patients as of tomorrow at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government pays too little.

Ah, but what about if/when the government becomes the only player in town?

Mayo’s move to drop Medicare patients may be copied by family doctors, some of whom have stopped accepting new patients from the program, said Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a telephone interview yesterday.

“Many physicians have said, ‘I simply cannot afford to keep taking care of Medicare patients,’” said Heim, a family doctor who practices in Laurinburg, North Carolina. “If you truly know your business costs and you are losing money, it doesn’t make sense to do more of it.”

But if doctors can't afford to take Medicare patients, how will doctors afford to take "public option" patients?

Now I know the current Senate bill doesn't have a public option.  But there are many on the left (including in the House of Representatives) who prefer a public option.  We may yet get one.

So what will happen to doctors then?  How many will leave the profession because it no longer pays?

Christmas Stinker From the Senate

Well, this morning the Senate passed its version of health care reform on a straight party-line vote (the two "independents" voting with the Democrats).  As AP reports:

Senate Democrats passed a landmark health care bill in a climactic Christmas Eve vote that could define President Barack Obama's legacy and usher in near-universal medical coverage for the first time in the country's history.

"We are now finally poised to deliver on the promise of real, meaningful health insurance reform that will bring additional security and stability to the American people," Obama said shortly after the Senate acted.

Yeah, right.

This doesn't mean it's a done deal.  It still has to be reconciled with the House version and then whatever comes out of that process has to be voted on by both chambers and passed.

Still, what's in this bill is egregious enough.  As Betsy McCaughey relates in today's Investor's Business Daily, there are "lumps of coal" in the Senate's Christmas "treat."

1) Higher Premiums

2) A cost you can't afford and can't avoid (because it's mandatory)

3) A One-Size-Fits-All Health Plan

4) A sin tax on your generous plan at work

5) Government controls on your doctors' decisions

6) Hospitals closed to seniors

7) Bare-bones hospital care

8) Future Medicare cuts (just in time for us baby boomers to join the program)

9) A new social agenda

10) A tell-all relationship with every doctor you see

Details at the link.

But it's clear the Senate version will fundamentally change health care in America and not for the better.  You sure this is the change you voted for?

Favoritism in the Reid Health Care Bill

You thought health care reform was about health care, right?  Seems a lot of it is about handing out favors to Democratic constituent groups.  Not only is there a payoff to ACORN in the latest version, but the way taxes are levied are very biased toward Democrat constituents.  The Wall Street Journal in an unsigned editorial relates:

White House budget director Peter Orszag has claimed that the bill's 40% excise tax on high-cost insurance plans is key to reducing health costs. Yet the Senate Majority Leader's new version specifically exempts "individuals whose primary work is longshore work." That would be the longshoremen's union, which has negotiated very costly insurance benefits. The well-connected dock workers join other union interests such as miners, electrical linemen, EMTs, construction workers, some farmers, fishermen, foresters, early retirees and others who are absolved from this tax.

In other words, controlling insurance costs is enormously important, unless your very costly insurance is provided by an important Democratic constituency.

So just how is health insurance taxes supposed to lower health insurance costs is a mystery to me.  But even if they did, carving out exceptions will only dilute the effect.  But have to keep those Democrat voting-blocks happy.

But this puts the lie to any claims by Democrats that this bill is for the good of the people.  It's just more graft to pay off Democrat constituents.

Pay Off to ACORN in Senate Health Care Bill

Apparently the Reid bill has been replaced by a back-room-spawned "manager's amendment" that few Senators have seen let a alone read.

Luckily, some outside the world's most deliberative body are reading it.  And according to the Weekly Standard's blog, there's language that makes ACORN eligible for more government (read: your) money:

[P]ages 240 through 248 of the manager's amendment, requires that six different agencies each establish an “Office of Minority Health.”

And this Office of Minority Health will be funneling money to:

[P]ublic and nonprofit private entities, agencies, as well as Departmental and Cabinet agencies and organizations, and with organizations that are indigenous human resource providers in communities of color . . . 

And ACORN fits that bill of "organizations that are indigenous human resource providers in communities of color."

So now the Senate bill is not just an exercise in screwing up 1/7th of our economy, but also a pay off to Democrat special interests.  Why does this not surprise me?

The Reid Bill is Unconstitutional

Richard Epstein spends 8,400 words telling us why the Reid health care reform bill is unconstitutional.

You don't need 8,400 words to know that.  Just read Article I Section 8 of the Constitution and see if there's anything in there stating that Congress has the power to force you to buy health insurance.  In fact, is there authorization in there for numerous things government is now doing?  The answer is clearly "No."

Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped Congress before and it won't again.

Why Should Government-Run Health Care be Different?

It seems every government program ends up costing more than projected.  And while projected costs for health care reform run from hundreds of billions to $1 trillion, they are all probably low.  Nick Gillespie explains in this Reason TV video (hat tip The Corner):

 

More Stimulus Money Went to Democrat Districts

Well, it appears the Democrats have secured the 60th vote needed to pass Obamacare (Reidcare?).  The monstrosity was made secure by paying off Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska.  As Glen Reynolds says, why not, it's not their money they are spending, it's yours.

Meanwhile, we have an example of why we don't want government running 1/6th of the economy.  Because any government distribution program is an opportunity for graft and pay offs.  As Fox New reports:

Democratic districts have received nearly twice as much stimulus money as Republican districts and the cash has been awarded without regard to how badly an area was suffering from job losses, according to a new study.

In other words, stimulus money was not distributed to help people in need, but to help Democrats win re-election.

"You would think, right, that if the administration believes in its theory that government money can create jobs, they would spend a lot of money in districts that have high unemployment," study co-author Veronique de Rugy said. "We found absolutely no relationship. It just kind of shows that the money is spent kind of randomly."

Rather, the study found that Democratic congressional districts received 1.89 times more money than GOP districts. The average award for Democratic districts was $439 million, while the average award for Republican ones was $232 million. 

So just think what the Democrats can do with health care.  Maybe your chances of getting an MRI will depend on living in a Democrat district.  And if you don't think that can happen, then look at where the stimulus money went.

 

Health Care Bill is "Scary" and Rations Health Care

Tom Coburn is a Senator and a medical doctor.  He has an op-ed piece in today's Wall Street Journal in which he describes his opposition to the current health care bill in the Senate:

My 25 years as a practicing physician have shown me what happens when government attempts to practice medicine: Doctors respond to government coercion instead of patient cues, and patients die prematurely. Even if the public option is eliminated from the bill, these onerous rationing provisions will remain intact.

For instance, the Reid bill (in sections 3403 and 2021) explicitly empowers Medicare to deny treatment based on cost. An Independent Medicare Advisory Board created by the bill—composed of permanent, unelected and, therefore, unaccountable members—will greatly expand the rationing practices that already occur in the program. Medicare, for example, has limited cancer patients' access to Epogen, a costly but vital drug that stimulates red blood cell production. It has limited the use of virtual, and safer, colonoscopies due to cost concerns. And Medicare refuses medical claims at twice the rate of the largest private insurers.

And that rationed care will costs lives and health of patients.  Don't think it won't happen?  It already is in countries with government-run health care:

Section 6301 of the Reid bill creates new comparative effectiveness research (CER) programs. CER panels have been used as rationing commissions in other countries such as the U.K., where 15,000 cancer patients die prematurely every year according to the National Cancer Intelligence Network. CER panels here could effectively dictate coverage options and ration care for plans that participate in the state insurance exchanges created by the bill.

So in order to save money (out of a $1 trillion package) your life and health will be secondary to the all mighty dollar.  And if you think trying to get the insurance company to pay for something is rough, try it with an unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy.

Why the "Public Option" Would Become the Only Option

When Barack Obama says you can keep your health care plan under health care reform if there's a public option, he is, well, lying.  The reason is that the public option would become the only option.  As shown in this short cartoon (Hat tip: Washington Policy Blog):

Of course, the left is opposing any health care reform that doesn't have a public option.  And that's because they want a single-payer "only option" health care system.