The Smoking Argus

OFFICIAL STATEMENT – As the health insurance reform debate enters into its final stages in Congress, the President denounces the desperate and deceptive last-ditch efforts of the health insurance companies to derail it. October 17, 2009. (Public Domain)

—END OFFICIAL STATEMENT—

Related Material(s)
	President Obama Weekly Address: Taking the Insurance Companies Down the Road TRANSCRIPT (PDF 16.7 Kb)

Source(s):

The Smoking Argus

OFFICIAL STATEMENT – The President discusses ongoing efforts to spur job creation. He also explains why health insurance reform is needed not just for long-term economic stability, but in the immediate future, discussing statistics on how costs will continue to skyrocket and hurt small businesses even next year. October 3, 2009. (Public Domain)

—END OFFICIAL STATEMENT—

Related Material(s)
	President Barack Obama Weekly Address: Health Care Reform Urgent TRANSCRIPT (PDF 13.3Kb)

Source(s): The White House • The White House YouTube Channel

Wire Report

Michael D. Tanner, Senior Fellow

Michael Tanner heads research into a variety of domestic policies with a particular emphasis on health care reform, social welfare policy, and Social Security. His most recent book, Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution (2007), chronicles the demise of the Republican party as it has shifted away from its limited government roots and warns that reform is necessary to avoid electoral defeat in 2008. Under Tanner’s direction, Cato launched the Project on Social Security Choice, which is widely considered the leading impetus for transforming the soon-to-be-bankrupt system into a private savings program. Time Magazine calls Tanner, “one of the architects of the private accounts movement,” and Congressional Quarterly named him one of the nation’s five most influential experts on Social Security.

Sen. Baucus (D-MT) and his fellow “Gang of Six” negotiators have labored mightily and brought forth a mouse—a steroid-enhanced, misshapen mouse, but a mouse nonetheless. In fact, despite months of work, Sen. Baucus has not actually produced a bill, but a 223-page summary of what he hopes a bill will contain. Unfortunately, without seeing actual legislative language, many questions still remain.

Here is some of what we know and don’t know:

The Good:

• The plan drops the idea of a government-run “public option” in favor of co-ops. Government involvement with these co-ops would essentially be limited to providing start-up grants. The co-ops are unlikely to have much, if any, impact on the cost or availability of health insurance, but are far preferable to a government run plan.

• The plan takes the first tentative steps toward allowing people to purchase health insurance across state lines. It would allow states to establish interstate compacts for insurance purchasing beginning in 2015. It would also allow insurers to develop national products that could be sold in any state. National plans would be exempt from state mandated benefits. This doesn’t go far enough, and risks simply transferring regulation and mandates from the state to the regional or national level, but a first read suggests it is a step in the right direction.

The Bad:

• The plan would force states to increase Medicaid eligibility to individuals at 133 percent of the poverty level, and to enroll single, childless adults. The federal government would pick up some of the increased cost; states would be responsible for at least some of the increase, a provision that will undoubtedly strain already tight state budgets.

• While the employer mandate is much watered-down, it is still there. The Baucus plan has no specific requirement for employers to provide insurance. But any employer who fails to do so would have to pay the cost of all subsidies that the government provides his or her workers to help them pay for insurance on their own, up to $400 per worker. Since it will ultimately be the worker who pays the mandate’s cost, through reduced compensation or reduced employment, the government will be giving the worker a subsidy with one hand, and taking it back with the other.

• The bill would cut payments to the Medicare Advantage program. In response, many insurers may stop participating in the program, while others could increase the premiums they charge seniors. Millions of seniors will likely be forced off their current plan and back into traditional Medicare.

The Ugly

• The Baucus plan contains a heavily punitive individual mandate, a requirement that every American purchase a government-designed minimum insurance package. Failure to comply would result in a fine that could run as high as $3,800 for a family of four. Moreover, the mandate may not apply just to those without insurance today. While the summary says that those with “grandfathered” plans would not have to change their current plan to satisfy the mandate, it is vague about what qualifies as “grandfathered.” The summary also says that employer-provided plans would have to be changed within five years to comply with new insurance regulations, and that “grandfathered” plans would not be eligible for any subsidies. It is unclear, therefore, whether people will be able to keep their current plans.

• The Baucus plan imposes a 35 percent excise tax on health insurance plans that offer benefits in excess of $8,000. Insurers would almost certainly pass this tax on to consumers in the form of higher premiums. Roughly half of Americans, mostly middle-class, would be impacted. There are also “fees” on prescription drug companies, medical device manufacturers, and clinical laboratories. This is simply a way of hiding taxes, and will result in higher health care costs that will be passed on to consumers.

Related Material(s)
	Chairman’s Mark – “America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009″ a.k.a “Baucus Bill” (PDF 1.2 Mb)
	Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
	Michael D. Tanner discusses health care reform on WBT’s “The Tara Servatius Show” (Charlotte, NC)

The Smoking Argus

(OFFICIAL STATEMENT) – Last Wednesday the nation was riveted to the President’s speech on healthcare reform before Congress. While the President’s concern for the uninsured is no doubt sincere, his plan amounts to a magnanimous gift to the health insurance industry, despite any implications to the contrary.

For decades the insurance industry has been lobbying for mandated coverage for everyone. Imagine if the cell phone industry or the cable TV industry received such a gift from government? If government were to fine individuals simply for not buying a corporation’s product, it would be an incredible and completely unfair boon to that industry, at the expense of freedom and the free market. Yet this is what the current healthcare reform plans intend to do for the very powerful health insurance industry.

The stipulation that preexisting conditions would have to be covered seems a small price to pay for increasing their client pool to 100% of the American people. A big red flag, however, is that they would also have immunity from lawsuits, should they fail to actually cover what they are supposedly required to cover, so these requirements on them are probably meaningless. Mandates on all citizens to be customers of theirs, however, are enforceable with fines and taxes.

Insurance providers seem to have successfully equated health insurance with health care but this is a relatively new concept. There were doctors and medicine long before there was health insurance. Health insurance is not a bad thing, but it is not the only conceivable way to get health care. Instead, we seem to still rely on the creativity and competence of politicians to solve problems, which always somehow seem to be tied in with which lobby is the strongest in Washington.

It is sad to think of the many creative, free market solutions that government prohibits with all its interference. What if instead of joining a health insurance plan, you could buy a membership directly from a hospital or doctor? What if a doctor wanted to have a cash-only practice, or make house calls, or determine his or her own patient load, or otherwise practice medicine outside the constraints of the current bureaucratic system? Alternative healthcare delivery models will be at an even stronger competitive disadvantage if families are forced to buy into the insurance model. And yet, the reforms are sold to us as increasing competition.

What if just once Washington got out of the way and allowed the ingenuity of the American people to come up with a whole spectrum of alternatives to our broken system? Then the free market, not lobbyists and politicians, would decide which models work and which did not.

Unfortunately, the most broken aspect of our system is that Washington sees the need to act on every problem in society, rather than staying out of the way, or getting out of the way. The only tools the government has are force and favors. These are tools that many unscrupulous and lazy corporations would like to wield to their own advantage, rather than simply providing a better product that people will willingly buy. It seems the health insurance industry will get more of those advantages very soon.

Thanks for calling this update, a new update is placed on this number (888) 322-1414 every Monday morning. The written text can be found on my website www.house.gov/paul under the heading Texas Straight Talk.

Thanks for calling.

—END OFFICIAL STATEMENT—

Representative Ron Paul Texas Straight Talk: Healthcare Reform is More Corporate Welfare TRANSCRIPT (49.1kb PDF)

Source(s): Online Office of Representative Ron Paul (TX) – Texas Straight Talk • MinnesotaChris

Allison Bricker

Social news site reddit.com interviews 14th Congressional District representative, Ron Paul. Questions were asked and voted upon by the reddit community, with the top ten questions asked during the course of the interview.

1. Kitanata: Dr. Paul, you have stated that you do not support Net Neutrality. Could you define Net Neutrality as you see it, then elaborate on what aspects of Net Neutrality you do not support and why? Thank you.




2. Fauster: Do you think that scientists are politically motivated with regard to issues of global warming and evolution? As a medical professional, you probably understand the value of deferring to specialists outside areas of your expertise. Nonetheless, you openly disagree with overwhelming scientific consensus in these two areas. While hardly anyone thinks Greenland will melt in twenty years, the overwhelming majority of scientists believe the effects of climate change will be lasting and severe in the next 50-100 years. With regard to evolution, almost all biologists, geologists, and physicists would say it’s better characterized as a law than a theory. Do you think the Bible provides a superior account of the origins of life on Earth, and thus claim a different source of expertise? Or rather, do you believe that scientific claims are grossly wrong, biased, or politically motivated?




3. SquirrelOnFire: Congressman Paul, The current health care legislation seems to be moving closer to the insurance industry’s ideal (minimal change + mandatory insurance) each day. What can be done to tip the balance of power in the congress away from lobbyists and towards the voters? Thank you for agreeing to speak with us.




4. Blackf1sh: Congressman Paul, Government investments in science and technology have historically yielded great returns. For example, it has been estimated[1] that, “technologies derived from quantum mechanics may account for 30% of the gross national product of the United States.” Money from the US government has led to the development of the internet[2] and a long list of NASA spin-off technologies have contributed to our daily lives[3].

   In contrast, the risk-averse private sector has little incentive and a poor track record for funding these types of long-term projects. Although the exploratory research in academic settings is often inefficient at achieving specific goals, it has the unique potential to yield unexpectedly amazing results on decade-long timescales.

   How can one justify reducing the budget for science and technology in spite of the quality of life and national security afforded by the developments from government-funded research?




5. Rightc0ast: Dr. Paul, Regarding the theory of evolution, I realize you have said you don’t feel the issue is important, but it’s been a topic discussed at great length at reddit, and other web sites. We’d really appreciate an answer to this.

   Allow me to clarify. Many people mistakenly confuse actual evolution with abiogenesis, or life coming from inanimate matter. Evolution is not a theory of creation. It is a theory encompassing genetic drift and selection, and describing changes in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Do you accept evolution in this regard as the foundation upon which nearly all biological knowledge is based, or do you truly believe change within species from generation to generation does not occur?




6. DoesMyKeyboardWork: Dr. Paul, What would a “return to sound currency” look like? Realistically, how would it play out? Would people exchange their dollars for a new gold/silver backed currency?

   As much as I agree with you (donated for the original money bomb, sticker on my car, wrote you in for the election), the defeatist in me thinks this is impossible and the entire system is eternally ruined. Thank you (and sorry for the pessimism)




7. TheHiveQueen: Dr. Paul, How do you reconcile the fact that you believe that the Federal Government has no place in Gay Marriage debate with your support of DOMA?




8. Playeren: Sir, should the government be able to keep secrets from the public at all? And Is ultimate freedom more important than ultimate security?




9. Chungkaishek: Dr. Paul, Given your well-established belief in the merits of the free market system, I’d like to know how you feel about the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA establishes restrictions and requirements on businesses, something I imagine goes against free market principles, yet it also ensures, for example, that a blind customer with a service animal such as a seeing eye dog will be treated like any other customer and not turned away for bringing a dog into a store.

   Should a free market decide which customers get service, or is this the responsibility of the federal government?




10. Jboeke: Dr. Paul, I’m trying to be a good libertarian, but I’m conflicted. I live in Phoenix, AZ and we just started up our light rail system earlier this year. I love it! I use it to commute to work and take it to the bar on weekends so I don’t drive drunk.

    But, light rail was a big public works project which took millions in taxpayer money from the three different cities and the Federal government. Unfortunately, I can’t imagine a scenario where something like light rail would have ever been built by the free market. How can I enjoy this project and still be a good libertarian?

The Smoking Argus

(WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL STATEMENT) -President Obama debunks the myths around health reform, and discusses the public option proposal in which many of them are rooted. But he focuses his address on the stark moral and historical turning point at which we find ourselves. August 22, 2009. (Public Domain)

- End OFFICIAL STATEMENT-

Source(s): The White House • White House Official YouTube Channel

Allison Bricker

Members of Congress Free to Sue Insurance Companies if harmed, the Public Cannot.

WASHINGTON D.C. – Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), refused to allow a vote on an amendment to H.R. 3200 designed to strip Tort immunity granted to insurance companies in cases of injury or wrongful death. During the fifth and final day of debate in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Representative Waxman in his role as Chairman, cited a “jurisdictional” point of order, despite several colleagues and parliamentarians advising to the contrary.

The amendment, authored by Representative John Shadegg (R-AZ/3), sought to remove what he referred to as a “stealth provision” in the bill. Specifically, Section 151 of “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009″ (H.R. 3200) extends immunity to all health insurance policies under the “Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974″ (ERISA) which result in injury or death due to a denial of coverage. The main point of contention arises due to the fact that plans under ERISA, prevent injured parties from recovering any type of damages via the courts. One notable exception to ERISA is members of Congress and their families, who are free to pursue damages unabated.

Currently, plans fall under the jurisdiction of ERISA if offered as a benefit of employment or are a negotiated provision under a union contract. However, insurance plans purchased by an individual for themselves or family from the private sector offer no such civil immunity to the insurance companies.

Representative Frank Pallone Junior (D-NJ/6) who in his career has received millions in campaign contributions from the health care and insurance industries originally raised the point of order. Thus consequently, the bill passed out of committee by a vote of 31 to 28 with the tort immunity in tact. The full house will have a chance to vote on the bill upon returning from their August recess.

If this provision of the bill remains unchanged, all Americans will be unable to seek any remedy for a denial of care, whether experienced due to the fiduciary constraints of all “fixed cost” systems or from health care bureaucrats determining a procedure is unnecessary.

That is, unless they become a member of Congress first.

Other Related Material
	GPO certified version of HR 3200 (PDF 1.78mb)
	Full Text of ERISA Act of 1974
	Committee Hearing over Amendment to HR 3200 (7/31/2009)

The Smoking Argus

Republican Minority Whip, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona discusses the G.O.P.’s alternative to President Obama and the Democrats health care plan. The Republican plan calls for more vigorous prosecution of fraud in both Medicaid and Medicare, along with offering small businesses the ability  to band together and purchase health insurance in large blacks similar to the manner in which big companies purchase insurance.

Senator Kyl also expresses the need to be deliberate about reform instead of rushing the bill through Congress at President Obama’s request. Finally Senator Kyl indicates that unlike the Democrat plan which would raise taxes on small businesses, the Republican plan has no additional need for a tax increase especially during a recession.

Source(s): GOP Weekly Address YouTube Channel

The Smoking Argus

WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL STATEMENT – The President calls on Congress to seize this opportunity one that may not come again for decades and finally pass health care reform: Its about every family unable to keep up with soaring out of pocket costs and premiums rising three times faster than wages. Every worker afraid of losing health insurance if they lose their job, or change jobs. Everyone whos worried that they may not be able to get insurance or change insurance if someone in their family has a pre-existing condition July 18, 2009. (Public Domain)

—End Official Statement—

Source(s): The White House • White House Official YouTube Channel

Allison Bricker

With the elections just over two-weeks away, both Senator’s Obama and McCain continue to attempt to out promise one another in terms of freebies for Americans.  On the top of their agendas, Universal healthcare, brought to you by the same geniuses who thought forcing banks to make liar and no-doc loans sounded like a sound plan to increase home ownership. Yes Universal healthcare for all, nevermind the 3 million veterans already promised healthcare for life who end up dying from government incompetence and second-rate service.

Nick Gillespie, of Reason TV looks behind the false claim that “42 million Americans cannot afford insurance.”