ObamaCare Lies

From Your ObamaCare Watchdog

Obama’s New “Waiver Flexibility” Plan To States Is Path To Single Payer Faster

What do you do when your signature piece of legislation has been ruled by two federal courts as unconstitutional, was passed against the will of the people, is massively unpopular by voters, and was responsible for the biggest mid-term election sweep against the party in power in decades? You act like you’ve heard the concerns and are willing to scale it back. Some. Except you don’t really mean it and except that your proposal is worse than meaningless window dressing.

While the Obama administration has handed out hundreds of ObamaCare waivers to corporations (especially those willing to play ball with it), it recently has heard the calls from beleaguered states who are overwhelmed with Medicaid expenses as is, and will be completely ransacked by the full implementation of ObamaCare. So, the other day, at a meeting with the nation’s governors, President Obama offered a plan to allow the states “flexibility” and which would move up the date by which they could opt out. But, as Conn Carroll at The Heritage Foundation’s The Foundry/Morning Bell blog points out in detail, the proposal only offers “flexibility” in the time it would take to get to a single-payer system (i.e., a complete government takeover).

There’s nothing like a disingenuous proposal to keep the people off your back. While supporters of the proposal, sponsored by Senators Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts), would allow the states some flexibility, it comes with many strings attached, not the least of which is our favorite: Any exemptions to ObamaCare as currently maintained in the law would have to come from the Secretary of Health and Human Services — one more power to the thousands that office currently holds under ObamaCare. Talk about czars!

Meanwhile, as Ben Smith reports at Politico, at the same time the president was selling this “flexibility” package with the governors — which, he maintains, would allow them to introduce market-based solutions — his health care advisors were on a conference call with liberal activists extolling the real aims of the plan: It would allow “blue” states to get to single payer faster.

Here’s how Heritage’s Center for Policy Innovation Director Stuart Butler described it in the New England Journal of Medicine:

One [problem] is that [Wyden-Brown] still locks the states into guaranteeing a generous and costly level of benefits. True, a state could propose alternative benefit requirements if they had the same actuarial value as those in the [health care bill]. But the requirements go well beyond basic coverage, and the HHS secretary is the one who defines “at least as comprehensive” benefits. …

Not much of a move to the middle, not much of a compromise, not much of a remedy to the states. Not much of anything at all . . . except another duplicitous front opened up by the administration to misdirect the public about the true intentions of ObamaCare.


March 3, 2011 Posted by | Health Care Law | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Congressional Twilight Zone: Repealing ObamaCare Increases The Deficit!

Congressional ObamaCare supporters entered the minority January 5 the same way they ran the House of Representatives the last four years: In the political version of the Twilight Zone. In an astonishing claim, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said repealing ObamaCare would “increase” the chronic budget deficit (see David Limbaugh at Townhall.com).

More absurd than that was her defense of the “pay as you go” rule which the new Republican majority expedited to the capitol dumpster (see Emily Miller at Human Events). Billed as a way to keep spending in check by mandating any new program be paid for, it was a subterfuge for increased spending — just raise the money to pay for it. Then she seriously (or at least acted serious) lambasted the Republican “cut as you go” reform that mandates any new spending must be paid for with a commensurate cut in another program. Pelosi and her colleagues remarkably said this would increase the deficit. (Her way worked so well, it added $5.1 trillion to the national debt in four years.) Which brings us to ObamaCare.

Ms. Pelosi and other loudmouth libs such as Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.) (see Andrew Marcus at BigGovernment.com) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) (see Washington Times) said that a successful GOP repeal of ObamaCare would increase the deficit (see Conn Carroll at The Heritage Foundation’s The Foundry blog). Only in Nancy’s Washington World of Political Paranormal does spending more than a trillion dollars bring down the deficit.

Elected officials are supposed to be public servants, thus the vocation of public service. But in Nancy’s bizarre perception of how things work, Washington is the master and we serve it, which is why she now finds herself in the minority — and in her own little world. It’s one screenplay Rod Sterling didn’t think of. But the next time Nancy speaks, someone should cue the music.

January 13, 2011 Posted by | Health Care Law | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Year, Cinderella Not The Only Things That Changed At Midnight

Big-government liberals (sorry for the redundancy) claim the ObamaCare takeover of the health and insurance industries was the necessary fix for the “broken” health care system. But the high health care costs and the myriad of problems people experience are caused by the same big-government intrusions now increased exponentially in this mammoth law. The one free-market reform in this area in recent times — the creation of tax-free health savings accounts, flexible spending accounts and health reimbursement accounts — disproves the lie that government is needed to reduce health care costs.

These accounts, basically health care IRAs or 401ks, allow people to save pre-tax earnings in accounts specifically set up for health care expenses, and they are growing immensley popular (see ModernHealthCare.com). Instead of going through a middle man (insurance companies) to pay for something basic — a doctor visit to treat a cold, for example — and driving up costs, people pay through their own accounts. The patient generally gets a better price, since he or she is paying cash (and negotiating directly) to the source.

More importantly, it puts consumers in charge, allows them to compare, and creates a competitive health care market. We don’t use car insurance for oil changes and new tires, either, and those services are plentiful and inexpensive. According to Conn Carroll at The Heritage Foundation’s The Foundry, people who use these health accounts realize a 20 percent savings in health care costs.

But hold on a minute. As of 12:01 a.m. January 1, under ObamaCare, purchases of over the counter drugs and other health care items through HSAs, FSAs and HRAs are banned without a prescription. But we all know ObamaCare doesn’t increase bureaucracy, get in the way of decision making, cause inconvenience, restrict freedom, nor increase costs by mandating unnecessary trips to the doctor. Then there’s the whole rationing thing: More people clogging doctors’ offices for reasons not applicable to right reason. Not only has ObamaCare effectively killed the health account program, it has hamstrung current users and reduced their effectiveness after years of putting away savings — and using them outside their shrinking areas of allowance gets them smacked with new taxes and a penalty!

More expense, less choice, more government meddling, hurting the people it was set up to help. Strike up several more lies for ObamaCare and its proponents, and all in one swift stroke of the clock.

January 12, 2011 Posted by | Health Care Law | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


%d bloggers like this: