Democrats in the House of Representatives, in a drama played out like a soap opera, by using a variety of maneuvers and persuasions, passed landmark legislation on Sunday. Democrats are calling the federal healthcare takeover landmark reform. A number of conservatives see it as landmark looting by leftwing Dems who are expanding the federal government to unprecedented size.
Now all that remains is for the biggest spender in American history, President Barack Obama, to sign the bill and for the Senate to consider changes. That process in the Senate will likely produce a spinoff drama, by the way.
While many of us believe healthcare reform is necessary, we also believe this legislation cannot in all good conscience be called reform. Having witnessed so-called reform in mortgage lending, car manufacturing, education and numerous other federal endeavors, we have come to realize that ‘reform’ is simply Dem-speak for spending large sums of money to broaden the welfare state while at the same time looting the producers and workers.
Who are the uninsured?
One overlooked fact media will never mention relates to who this bill is designed to benefit. In an earlier post at The US Report long before Sen. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) began to feel “giddy,” we provided information about the group in need. At that time, the president and his colleagues cited 45-47 million uninsured who would be helped. Now that number is down to 31 million. Ah, well, 45 million sounded so good on the campaign trail.
Our Jul., 2009 post about the uninsured pointed out, among other things:
“The involuntarily uninsured are more likely to be Hispanic and to be foreign born non-citizens and their educational level is considerably lower. One third of the involuntarily uninsured are high school dropouts compared to 20 percent of the voluntarily uninsured. The involuntarily uninsured are almost twice as likely as the voluntarily uninsured to have never worked during the year. About 15 percent of the voluntarily uninsured are self-employed.”
Will we import more foreign doctors?
It has long been our view that the president and the Democrats, having made promises to advocacy groups that largely lobby for Hispanic legal and illegal immigrants, are simply paving the way for amnesty. We have seen the aftermath of amnesty in times past. It will cost us to subsidize cheap labor for large corporations with cronies in the federal government.
Another beneath the radar moment was published in the Florida Times-Union on Sunday. Jacksonville doctor Allan Schonberg offers this glimpse at what he faces on Medicaid. Explaining that Obama suggested upping Medicaid reimbursements by 20 percent, the doctor said that increase would bring the doctor fee to $14.40 for seeing a Medicaid patient. Based on volume of seeing a patient every 10 minutes, the doctor said, “After rent, malpractice and paying office staff, your primary care physician would only lose approximately $200,000 a year.” Emphasize the word, ‘lose.’
That is the impact of government providing charity care as opposed to the private sector providing charity care. Does the government have a plan to come up with more doctors?
The only plan I can think of is for the government to import foreign doctors who will work for less.
Exemptions for some insurers and Dem cronies in labor
Also of interest are exemptions for some insurers regarding new fees insurers must pay. Kaiser Permanente and Geisinger will only have to pay it on half their premiums. Wire services note both companies are “tax exempt,” which is of course the direction Democrats hope to take the health insurance industry.
Within 3 years, upper income workers will see an increased Medicare payroll tax to expand payment for their fellow citizens’ needs. At present this tax starts at $200k for a single and $250k for joint returns. That may change. If you recall Larry Summers was a force in the outrageous tax increases President Bill Clinton pushed through, enacting a significant burden on the middle class Democrats court. And now Summers serves another 'social justice' master, Obama.
The Democrats will now look for creative ways to increase taxes by any means possible.
But they’re still looking out for their cronies. Red State explains how an organization affiliated with the labor union movement got more than $28 million in 2008 from U.S. taxpayers.
Meanwhile the Senate Conservatives Fund has a form online where anti-socialized types can sign a ‘repeal it’ petition.
The matter of the federal deficit
Finally, the Tax Foundation weighed in on what profligate spending is doing to the deficit and this country. “Federal income tax rates would have to be more than doubled across the income spectrum if Congress were to close the deficit in fiscal year 2010, according to a new report from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Instead of taxing joint filers with rates ranging from 10 percent to 35 percent, tax rates would have to start at 24.3 percent and reach up to 84.9 percent.”
It must be pointed out, however, Obama has kept his pledge for change. He and his Chicago associates have cunningly devised ways to redistribute wealth at home and abroad. Increased energy costs for all as a result of HR 2454, a bill that punts economic advantages to so-called ‘developing countries’ like China, and increased taxes for many as a result of HR 3590 and HR 4872 among other bills, will certainly re-arrange American wealth.
Even those who voted for the healthcare bill on Sunday are clueless as to what the more than 2,000 page bill contains. The only thing we can be sure of is that this bill contains a heavy debt burden that will affect every family in America. This legislation will ultimately degrade the quality of medical care for all but the truly wealthy.
TUSR will continue to examine the bill in its present form and as alleged changes come forth. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) perspective is noteworthy. Now that the bill has passed, we can as she suggested, learn what's in it as our legislators who have not read the bill they voted for can now learn what's in it.
For an example of the kind of legislating Pelosi comes up with, check out the 'amendment to the amendment' known as HR 4872.
Perhaps Pelosi could explain this: "(11) strike section 1411 of the legislation (No Impact on Social Security Trust Funds)." What impact will this have on that fund? Anybody know, including Dem leaders? Do share.
Meanwhile, better buy up if you’re not insured. Among those new jobs proponents claim the government takeover will fund are thousands of IRS cops who are coming to get you if you don’t buy insurance. (--Kay B.Day/Mar. 22, 2010)