Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Just a brief post on the summit to this point. (1PM EST).

Just when Eric Cantor and others were getting to the meat of the issue President Obama said rather than go on with a ‘back and forth’ others should be allowed to speak.

Interpretation: When about to lose ground on reform the President side-stepped the very debate he said he wanted to have.

The Dems have cited anecdotes for an emotional appeal while members of the GOP have tried to move the discussion to the real debate of why we cannot afford the legislation as it will only make healthcare more expensive through taxes and other excessive regulatory restrictions.

Now they broke for ‘a House vote that has to be taken now’. They knew this summit was on for today. With all the days Congress takes off, why did they have to have a vote now. Sounds like step two in the dodge and weave to regroup as the GOP had the stronger arguments.

And if you listened to Washington Journal this a.m. prior to the summit you could have listened to Congressman Clyburn express the Dems goal is to provide unlimited coverage to Medicare as well as private insurance.

Then how do they expect anyone to believe we can afford healthcare reform? The answer is they don’t. They expect as most believed to takeover healthcare as a major step in bringing European socialism to the United States.

That is not a wild accusation. The evidence for the argument is all around you. All you have to do is open your eyes and observe. It is not that difficult.

Stay tuned to Cspan to ‘observe’ the liberal conspiracy first hand during this so-called healthcare summit. How many more times will Obama side-step the real debate when confronted by the GOP on the flaws of the Democratic majority’s healthcare component of their liberal agenda?

Currently we have witnessed side-step one and two (see above).

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related:

“A Reading Guide to the Senate Bill’s Backroom Deals” (Michelle Malkin) 

Here’s a suggestion for evaluating the soon to be televised (on Cspan) health summit hosted by the White House. You may recall President Barack ‘Mr Transparency during the 2008 campaign’ Obama was complicit in efforts by the Democratic party to exclude the Republican party from the business of crafting so-called healthcare reform legislation. Correction, that is now ‘health insurance reform.’

Just in case you forgot the following excerpt is provided as a reminder that much of the latest push in Congress and the White House for ‘reform’ has been behind opaque rather than transparent doors.

C-SPAN questions follow Obama

President Barack Obama might just wish he had opened even one health care meeting to the C-SPAN cameras.

The issue is starting to follow him around.

Once again Tuesday, he faced a question about it, from a high school student in Nashua, N.H., who asked him to grade the White House’s transparency efforts, given the fact that all the health care discussions have been behind closed doors.

Now that Obama has realized the mistake in hiding negotiations he expresses a ‘warning.’

President Obama warned lawmakers on both sides of the aisle Saturday not to turn the upcoming White House health-care summit into “political theater,” but rather “to seek common ground in an effort to solve a problem that’s been with us for generations.”

The ‘problem’ for the Dems is they have been trying to takeover healthcare for ‘generations.’

The standard rhetoric from the left now that they have initiated damage control for their lack of transparency is that the GOP is the party of ‘no’ and has no plans. The GOP counters with examples of their plans and a website to publish them. The right fears a setup or ambush by the left in this overdue suggestion of transparency. The left has the majority in DC as well as most of the cards yet have been unable to move their liberal agenda forward. It is reasonable to suspect all of this from both sides is politics as usual.

Everyone has an agenda including you and I. An agenda can be a good thing. But finding one in Washington DC that is good is next to impossible. Can politicians escape politics in this upcoming ’summit.’? Not likely.

The public is not happy with the Obama agenda or Congress. It is quite possible the GOP prefers the Dems own this one, meaning Obamacare. If health related legislation is passed in Congress without GOP support and turns out to be the disaster expected they can say we told you so. The Dems want the GOP to have ’skin in the game’ by signing on to this legislation without benefit of participation in its crafting. Obama’s health summit is likely a maneuver with that in mind.

Once again you are on your own to evaluate what is really going on. The upside is November 2010 holds the key. Tell the White House and Congress what you think with your vote.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related: Reconciliation, the public option, and Demcare revival (Michelle Malkin)

Transparency and accountability have been a focus in the long battle to defeat liberal control of healthcare in the United States. While the antiseptic qualities apply, described in the phrase, sunshine is the best disinfectant, public demand to review healthcare reform legislation and have input is key. President Obama’s release of his budget proposal for 2011 which begins in October requires the same scrutiny and public focus.

Are you kidding me? A three point eight trillion dollar budget ($3.8 trillion) is not what the doctor ordered. Just as the Democratic party and their agenda is on life support so is the US economy. Given that the vast majority of federal budgets are entitlements and discretionary spending this budget number is preposterous. Like the stark reality being experienced by the unemployed and under-employed the White House and Congress need a wake up call.

The plan includes big increases in personal and business taxes, modest spending cuts and increased outlays for education, defense and jobs initiatives.

First of all, tax increases are nonsense in this economy. Second, modest spending cuts are equally ignorant. As for education, sure, it is important. But the simple fact that everyone will have to suffer includes education. So your college plans are postponed for a year or two. Join the Peace Corps or something. And why do we think education can only be improved by spending money. That hasn’t improved student or teacher performance yet.

Cutting more entitlements would certainly help paying for any defense needs. And who the hell needs a jobs bill now that needs to be paid for over ten years? $80 to $100 billion over ten years for government make work jobs? That’s ridiculous.

And enough with the future timelines for reducing spending, deficits and the national debt. Do it now. Right now, in this budget in this year turn the corner and halt the damage being done by government malfeasance. As an ending note to this post Lamar Alexander put it best in describing current politics in Washington.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), appearing on the same program, praised Mr. Obama for talking about spending and tax cuts, but said his ideas were flawed. “I’ll give the president some credit,” he said. “He’s in the right church but the wrong pew.”

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

BTW, following links to the WSJ articles is worth the trip.  And so is the following link.

Debt deluge: Here comes the $1.6 trillion flood of red ink (Michelle Malkin) 

Every politician invokes the use of ’spin’ to some degree and with some frequency during their their term or terms in office. That is the essence of politics. And that is the dominant feature which cripples effective governance. Political games are often defended as a ncessary evil in government and public affairs. Of couse, politicians and those who craft strategy are the only ones who subscribe to that philosphy. And it is responsible for Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachusetts special election held last week.

But politicians and community organizers are addicted to that unfortunate part of the process. Enter President Barack Obama. Defined by supporters, of which there are less these days, as the consummate campaigner President Obama is once again embracing that which had served him well in getting elected. Even though it is largely responsible for his falling approval rating, failing agenda, dismal first year in office and party prospects in 2010.

White House officials say they understand why emotions are running high. The president’s top political aide says President Obama has had to take unpopular action to deal with an economic crisis far worse than anyone expected when he took office.

David Axelrod says he warned the president early on that his public approval ratings were likely to drop. “I said to him a year ago, Mr. President your numbers are going to be considerably worse a year from now than they are today because you can not govern in an economy like this without great disaffection,” he said.

Axelrod told the ABC television program This Week that he believes the president did the right thing. “I have no regrets about that. I think history will look back and say the President of the United States met his responsibilities,” he said.

Someone is smoking crack if they think reaction to Obama’s agenda is due to ‘an economic crisis far worse than anyone expected when he took office.’ Or have they forgotten all the Bush bashing in his last year of office over the ‘worst financial crisis since the Great Depression’?

Of course Axlerod suggests what history will say about Obama. There is nothing he can point to currently putting the President in a favorable light. The same goes for the President and the Democratic party’s agenda. Nothing positive is promised until years in the future with the expectation it can be passed and the sham will not be noticed for years.

With all this President Obama continues the spin strategy of politics.

Going into year two, political strategists expect the president to re-center himself Wednesday as a hard-fighting, bank-busting, Obama-on-your-side jobs president, while acknowledging the hiccups in getting to this point.

At the State of the Union, the state of the presidency may be the question that most needs answering.

“It’s going to be jobs, jobs, jobs. Economy, economy, economy,” said Democratic strategist Joe Trippi. “Year two’s gonna be this guy.”

And when that doesn’t work it will be some other guy. The never ending campaign continues.

Now, he is taking a more populist approach - focusing on the day-to-day issues that create money woes for many families.

He says it is part of an effort to show the administration cares about workers who are struggling to pay their bills or have anxieties about losing their jobs.

An entire year goes by before the tranformational President of hope and change recognizes the economy and jobs are the largest concern for voters. How reassuring.

Jan. 25 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama will propose a three-year freeze on federal spending outside of national security to save an estimated $250 billion over a decade as part of an effort to rein in record deficits, administration officials said.

Let’s see. Push a New Deal, eighty year liberal pursuit of the nanny state holy grail of government-run healthcare at 2 1/2 trillion dollars and then suggest a pultry $250 billion savings over the same time period as a new agenda strategy. It is remarkable his ratings are quoted at only down to about 50%. There must be a considerable number of people in favor of more job killing entitlements.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Clinton, like many who’ve studied the health-care bills, has problems with them. But to steal an Obama line, don’t let the perfect stand in the way of the good. We can either get a toe in the reform door now and fix things as we go along - like we fixed every piece of major legislation ever passed. Or we can “go back to the drawing board,” as Brown says, which means: Forget about it.

Whether the special election in Taxachusetts for Ted Kennedy’s vacant seat is about broader issues or simply political math for healthcare reform the piece above from the Boston Herald touts the liberal spin and perhaps unknowingly makes an argument against it.

Conceding the ability to produce a ‘perfect’ bill right now but fixing it later is how we get into problems with entitlements. Three quarters of the budget in recent years and probably longer is spending on entitlements. Social security, Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable. This is what the liberal agenda has given us since FDR.

It’s natural that citizens who did not voluntarily contribute to these programs through payroll deductions expect to receive the benefits after a lifetime of paying for them. There in lies the rub. The liberal agenda is patient. They try to convince the public their agenda is in the public interest. Over time the cost goes up and the benefits go down but the government gets bigger and the political power is secure. Too bad the same cannot be said for your future or that of your children.

‘Like we fixed every major piece of legislation ever passed.’ Does it really seem to you right now that anyone EVER fixed entitlements? Touching the third rail of politics causes political suicide. So all POLS can muster is ignoring the problems all together or continuing to raise taxes and reduce benefits to pay for programs that are simply not feasible.

Martha Coakley would tow the party line abusing majority status to heap more liabilities on American taxpayers in the name of reform. At least Scott Brown offers a chance to correct the problems and pursue reasoned solutions to critical issues. We cannot continue to spend money we don’t have. That is part of what caused the issues we face now…. spending what we don’t have.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

What’s the single largest problem with passing healthcare reform in one of its current versions or proposals in Congress? The funding of currently proposed legislation for healthcare reform starts almost immediately if passed. Whether you can keep your current coverage may begin to change in as little as one year. But the reform part, good, bad or ugly does not begin until 2014.

Start paying for reform as soon as any legislation passes but wait for any perceived benefit for four years. The most troubling issue with that condition is Congress can continue to alter the game after initial passage and make ‘reform’ worse than it is right now as the public loses interest over time. If you review most legislation that moves through Congress that is what it does, alters previous legislation.

So your chances for any benefit from what proponents call reform starts with pay for no play and diminishes from there. Opponents of healthcare reform point to higher taxes, higher premiums and less choice on medical care. If they’re right, regardless of your opinion of reform, you stand to lose immediately by paying for what reform covers with no chance to benefit for at least four years. And your chances beyond that period of time are small.

So even if you live in Nebraska or Louisiana where Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) sold their yes votes on healthcare reform for Medicaid deals for their respective states, you lose. And even residents of those two states stand to lose over time regardless of initial perks for selling their votes. Another member of Congress, Rep Joseph Cao (R-LA) from the 2nd district sold his vote for healthcare on the mere promise from President Obama that he would help him with healthcare issues. Well, that’s the public version of what happened.

For something of a reality check on healthcare reform and its politics here is an excerpt and link to Kimberly A. Strassel’s take on the situation.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Health Lady Has Yet to Sing

JANUARY 14, 2010, 10:35 P.M. ET
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Critics of the legislation shouldn’t get their hopes too high. The Democratic leadership is now clinically obsessed with passage. No first-round yes vote has yet jumped ship, and even if some do, Mrs. Pelosi has options. Prior no votes might be convinced that a more “moderate” Senate bill gives them cover to flip. Three no votes, including Tennessee’s John Tanner, are retiring, and may feel liberated. The White House no doubt has a list of plum jobs it can offer people as consolation prizes for voting yes and losing their seats.

The point is rather that there is now officially enough nervousness that anything can happen. Whatever the Tuesday election outcome, Mr. Brown already claims victory for rattling Democratic minds. And should he win, health care becomes even more toxic. This isn’t over yet.

Urge Democratic Leader to Comply with Open Government Act of 2007
Jan 12 2010

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., today joined 21 of their Senate Republican colleagues in signing a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asking him to provide a list of all earmarks and congressional directed spending in the Senate health care bill, as well as in any future version of the health care bill that House and Senate Democrats might push to a vote.

Isakson and Chambliss have repeatedly criticized the lack of transparency throughout the process of drafting the $2.5 trillion health care bill, as well as the backroom deals that Reid made with certain Senate Democrats in order to secure their votes.

The text of the letter is below:

Dear Majority Leader Reid,

We write to express our concern over the inclusion of several provisions in the Manager’s Amendment to The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Since the nearly 400 page amendment was introduced, we discovered over half a dozen provisions that appear to have been included for the primary purpose of benefitting some states in particular. Though your office has referred to these provisions as “a normal part of the legislative process,” we are concerned that the inclusion of these items without appropriate disclosure may violate The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.

The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-81) changed Senate rules to enhance transparency in the legislative process. The relevant change requires any amendment sponsor to publicly disclose each congressionally directed spending item and limited tax benefit included in that amendment. The design of this provision was to ensure that the American people know which lawmakers advocated for specific carve outs and earmarks.

It is clear that the Manager’s Amendment, in addition to the underlying bill, includes specific provisions which benefit some states and not others. We therefore ask you, as the sponsor of the Manager’s Amendment and underlying bill, to provide a list of all earmarks and congressional directed spending as required by The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. We request this information be shared with our offices and posted on the majority’s website within 24 hours.

Finally, we anticipate that in coming weeks you and Speaker Pelosi will introduce a bill combining the House and Senate health bills. Upon the introduction of that bill we request a similar list of provisions, as required by The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, be shared with our offices and posted on the majority’s website within 24 hours.

The American people deserve a transparent Congressional process. All Americans should know which States and entities will benefit from Congressional negotiations related to the health bills and amendments.

You gotta love the CBO. Okay, you don’t have to but they’re so cool they have been added to this blog’s resource list in the sidebar. Both the CBO and The Director’s Blog have a link. This reaction to the CBO could change at any time as with other links featured here. But certainly the work of the CBO in the current political climate deserves credit.

Both sides of the healthcare debate as well as other issues have frequently referred to the CBO’s analysis to make their case. But just like the one presented on this blog today you need to follow the link to make up your own mind and form an opinion.

The linked excerpts below highlight the business as usual aspects of the current healthcare debate on one aspect of the so-called reform. Proponents of the Democrats’ healthcare reform legislation love to say it will strengthen Medicare. Opponents, including this blog, say it will weaken it.

The title of the Director’s Blog post featured here describes the analysis presented. This particular one was published one day before Democrats in the Senate forced through ‘reform’ late at night on Christmas Eve.

Effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on the Federal Budget and the Balance in the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund

The permanent charade by politicians and program financing such as Medicare is highlighted in the next link.

The HI trust fund, like other federal trust funds, is essentially an accounting mechanism.

The effect of this accounting is explained as follows and again is nothing new.

However, because the government has used the cash from the trust fund surpluses to finance other current activities rather than saving the cash by running unified budget surpluses, the government as a whole has not been truly prefunding Medicare benefits.

Why this is important in the current debate is explained below.

Unified budget accounting shows that the majority of the HI trust fund savings would be used to pay for other spending under the PPACA and would not enhance the ability of the government to redeem the bonds credited to the trust fund to pay for future Medicare benefits.

Clearly, those suggesting current healthcare reform strengthens Medicare are WRONG. With Social Security and Medicare and probably with the remainder of the staggering three fourths of the annual budget which is entitlements, it is all smoke and mirrors. But CBO was polite enough to simply call it an accounting mechanism. After pressure applied by the White House on the CBO it is understandable. That’s another reason CBO is cool.

This is not new or some sort of revelation. If one reviews the experience of government programs, the legislation that causes it as well as modifying it from time to time one fact remains clear. The costs always exceed the forecasts. Certainly at the outset Social Security and Medicare were never predicted to become insolvent. Nor were their proponents suggesting a continuous increase in the taxes needed to keep them from going broke.

The same applies to current healthcare reform. As an example, the CBO often reminds the public about the limitations of its analysis. Projecting outcomes over a ten year analysis has some uncertainty but appears manageable. However, analysis beyond the initial ten year window is all but meaningless. The variables of what may happen over that much time are too difficult to predict. No one can take into account all the events that may happen by then. Including more meddling by politicians that always occurs.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

As the Democrat parade assembled this week for a five minute news conference on healthcare with giddy exuberance Speaker Pelosi dodged real questions on the issue. Sharing her giddiness as well as offering no substance to the discussion were the committee chairs from the House. Rangel, Waxman, Miller and Slaughter are Pelosi’s expendable accomplices.

At the time it appeared reasonable to visit the websites of the fearful foursome to review their respective positions on the matter. Because this blogger has less familiarity with George Miller of CA the review started with him.

After a few clicks to view various items related to the subject the last stop illuminated the puppet mentality of the four. Miller had what first appeared as a generous list of resources for review sporting titles that indicate a group of summarized and detailed references on healthcare legislation.

The most appealing referred to a list of those who support the legislation. Given every major and not so major poll for months has indicated most Americans oppose the legislation one could hardly resist taking a look.

Not a surprise that the link merely redirects one to Speaker Pelosi’s website. The list of supporters is dominated by labor unions and other special interests and agendas yet to be determined here.

One example of the support from a source unknown to this blogger stood out. Pay particular attention to the quote in the excerpt below that includes the word ‘ensure’. Then read the excerpt from the CBO director.

Barbara Kennelly, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
“The Affordable Health Care for America Act includes substantial benefits, improvements, and protections that are very important to our members…

“Contrary to the rhetoric heard from opponents, this bill does not cut Medicare; rather it includes provisions to ensure that we are receiving high quality care and the best value for our Medicare dollars.” [10/29/09]

from the CBO Director on November 18, 2009
Based on the extrapolation described above, CBO expects that Medicare spending under the bill would increase at an average annual rate of roughly 6 percent during the next two decades—well below the roughly 8 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades (excluding the effect of establishing the Medicare prescription drug benefit). Adjusting for inflation, Medicare spending per beneficiary under the bill would increase at an average annual rate of roughly 2 percent during the next two decades—much less than the roughly 4 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades. Whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care is unclear.

To emphasize the folly of either side of the debate suggesting absolute conclusions the more reasoned approach is found in the CBO Director’s letter to Harry Reid and repeated below:

Whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care is unclear.

The single feature of healthcare reform that was to garner support from one and all focused on the spiraling costs and reducing them. To bend the cost curve downward was a familiar expression over many months. There is no convincing evidence to support that notion in proposed legislation.

That collection of revenue for either the House or Senate version of healthcare reform would start in 2010 yet no claimed improvements would begin before 2014 should send up red flags for any observer. It’s the classic sucker punch from politicians. Pass legislation that increases revenue (taxes) immediately and promise outlays (expenditures) related to the revenue (taxes) at some point years in the future. This avoids the nasty repercussions of accountability by wearing down the public’s attention span as well as cementing bad policy and legislation for years to come.

It’s really simple math. Social security, Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable programs. The only way to balance the books is increase revenue (taxes) or cut outlays (expenditures) or both.

Some of those supporting as well as some of those opposing currently proposed healthcare reform legislation do so for personal gain. They have chosen a position based on their own situation and not yours. The rest of us would like things to improve but have little confidence the current proposals will help. The speed of the process suggests those in the majority in Congress, etc., want passage before the scam completely falls apart. That’s another one of those red flags you should have noticed. Ignore them at your own peril (and unfortunately the peril of your fellow citizens)

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Dec 24 2009

Dec 15 2009

Two shining examples of elected Representatives in the House allowing their votes to be bought for so-called health reform are Bart Stupak and Joseph Cao. A pair in the Senate likewise demonstrate the 60 vote fraud that is the Democratic party’s reform, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson.

After a brief review of manager’s amendment of Senate Majority Leader and vote buyer (with your money) Harry Reid a search of the vague and openended legislative item produced 19 references to abortion. From instances of where federal funding is prohibited for abortions to where it is allowed and various provisions demonstrating differences between federal and state wiggle room on the topic Reid’s back room deals are a masterpiece of arrogance and ignoring public opposition to this bill.

One might not expect provisions regarding firearms possession and similar items within a bill on health reform but that merely emphasizes the culture of corruption in Washington and a common description in most legislation allowing ‘and for other purposes’ to cover any deal POLS make.

Here are a few less contentious references to the Harry Reid manager’s amendment.

There are arrangements for using an arbitrary percentage to determine among other things rebates to premium payers under certain circumstances.

from the amendment….

In determining the percentages under paragraph (1), a State shall seek to ensure adequate participation by health insurance issuers, competition in the health insurance market in the State, and value for consumers so that premiums are used for clinical services and quality improvements.

‘‘(3) ENFORCEMENT.—The Secretary shall promulgate regulations for enforcing the provisions of this section and may provide for appropriate penalties.

Sure, the public sector, aka, your government will ’seek to ensure’ participation, competition and value for the consumer in a role in which it has never succeeded. But you can bet they will come up with penalties. After all, what a better way to raise more revenue from the private sector to waste on more governmet interference. It’s like you paying a thief to rob you.

On the issue of more bureaucracy and more waste comes another

‘‘(d) MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT DATA CENTERS.— ‘‘(1) FUNCTIONS.—A center established under
subsection (c)(1)(C) shall— ‘‘(A) develop fee schedules and other database tools that fairly and accurately reflect market rates for medical services and the geographic differences in those rates;

The devil’s in the details…..

‘‘(B) use the best available statistical methods and data processing technology to develop such fee schedules and other database tools; ‘‘(C) regularly update such fee schedules and other database tools to reflect changes in charges for medical services;
‘‘(D) make health care cost information readily available to the public through an Internet website that allows consumers to understand the amounts that health care providers in their area charge for particular medical services; and ‘‘(E) regularly publish information concerning the statistical methodologies used by the center to analyze health charge data and make such data available to researchers and policy makers.
‘‘(2) CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.—A center established under subsection (c)(1)(C) shall adopt by laws that ensures that the center (and all members of the governing board of the center) is independent and free from all conflicts of interest. Such bylaws shall ensure that the center is not controlled or influenced by, and does not have any corporate relation to, any individual or entity that may make or receive payments for health care services based on the center’s analysis of health care costs.
‘‘(3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to permit a center established under subsection (c)(1)(C) to compel health insurance issuers to provide data to the center.’’.

And one tiny example of how YOUR government will raise costs not only on established transactions but new ones.

‘‘(e) STANDARD HOSPITAL CHARGES.—Each hospital operating within the United States shall for each year establish (and update) and make public (in accordance with guidelines developed by the Secretary) a list of the hospital’s standard charges for items and services provided
by the hospital, including for diagnosisrelated groups established under section 886(d)(4) of the Social Security Act.’’.

And that is after less than an hour reviewing Harry Reid’s manager’s amendment. Which brings to mind the often stated criticism that few if any in Congress have read the bill or anything related to it. Yet they are content to pass it with sixty liberal Senate votes. You have to ask yourself why?

It’s all about money and power and has nothing to do with reform of anything.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

‘we have to get rid of the profit-driven, insurance company-driven health insurance system that we have’…

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: There — there are differences of opinion as to whether or not the Congressional Budget analysis is correct on — on the increase in premiums. But the important thing here is that I hope we can all agree that we have to get rid of the profit-driven, insurance company-driven health insurance system that we have, where it’s insurance company bureaucrats, Senator Coburn, that are getting in between patients and their doctors.

To suggest that this bill will put government in between patients and their doctors is really disingenuous…

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Debbie, a Representative from Florida; born in Forest Hills, Queens County, N.Y., September 27, 1966; B.A., University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla., 1988; M.A., University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla., 1990; aide to United States Representative Peter Deutsch, 1989-1992; member, Florida state house of representatives, 1992-2000; member, Florida state senate, 2000-2004; elected as a Democrat to the One Hundred Ninth Congress and to the two succeeding Congresses (January 3, 2005-present).

Any questions?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

update: related

The depths of Demcare demagoguery (Michelle Malkin) 

The liberals, the Democratic party POLS and others of a similar mindset would have you believe healthcare reform is a noble endeavor. President Obama has called for transparency and accountability and failed to deliver. Democratic party House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have promoted ‘a New Direction for America’ since the 2006 midterms and failed to deliver. In addition, a promise from Speaker Pelosi touted an end to the culture of corruption in Washington, DC. None of this has taken place.

As is the usual case with liberals they must find a villain to use in pursuit of their agenda. As with other items in their agenda they seek to convince you to pay for their power grab that includes diminishing your freedom, and in the case of healthcare reform, pay for their control over your health decisions and access. What was first described as healthcare reform has now been changed by the Dems to health insurance reform. As stated earlier, they must suggest a villain in an attempt to convince you they are fixing a problem. There real mission is to takeover healthcare in this country and your role in it.

This was the inspiration for this post. From the US Senate website regarding the ‘floor schedule.’

Floor Schedule

Monday, Nov 30, 2009

2:00 p.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.

Thereafter, resume consideration of H.R.3590, regarding health care reform.

Here are some simple questions to ask yourself about the Democratic majority’s pursuit of healthcare control. Read the following and ask yourself why the Dems would do this?

H.R.3590
Title: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 9/17/2009) Cosponsors (40)
Related Bills: H.R.3780, S.1728
Latest Major Action: 11/21/2009 Senate floor actions. Status: Measure laid before Senate by motion.
Note: H.R. 3590 is expected to be the vehicle for the Senate health care bill - the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. See the draft amendment from democrats.senate.gov.

If you follow the link to the liberal Senate site you may find the news items highlighted when this post was prepared. If not, they are presented here with comments.

Momentum Continues To Grow In Support Of The Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act

Not true. There is growing unrest, skepticism and polls indicating most people believe this agenda will be a failure and do nothing but add more debt and raise deficits for the future.

Health Reform Process Has Been Transparent

Not true. The bills were developed in closed door sessions shutting out the minority party. The documents were withheld from the public until outrage caused their release. Many voting for the bills never read them. In the Senate, Harry Reid bought the vote of Mary Landrieu with hundreds of millions in Medicaid dollars for her state. In the House, Rep Cao of LA voted for that version of the liberal bill for a similar reason. Obama promised him funds and other help for his state if he would. And you have to ask yourself why the Dems would use an unrelated bill as ‘the vehicle for’ their healthcare takeover legislation?

Reid: Supporters Of Reform Can See The Finish Line But Much Work Lies Ahead

If they can see the finish line they are hallucinating or have more funds to buy votes for this healthcare scam. Those funds belong to the taxpayer. The work that lies ahead is finding honest support for healthcare reform which the liberals renamed health insurance reform. These bills are neither.

Reid: Moving To Debate On Senate Health Proposal Shows The American People We’re Serious About Reform

Not true. It shows that Reid is serious about a sham takeover of Americans healthcare.

Reid, Baucus, Dodd and Harkin Introduce the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Not true. While they may have had something to do with its introduction, there is nothing about the bill that protects patients or makes healthcare affordable. The CBO has shown many times that this bill and the others will raise premiums, the national debt and deficits when the real cost of the bills are included.

The Democratic party majority in Washington, DC is unleashing a disaster on our nation when it can least afford it. If you sit idly by and let it happen you share the responsibility for this mess. Continue to contact your elected reps to help stop this insanity. If you think healthcare has problems now, just wait and see what Congress does to it if you let them.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related: Health Care Debate is Now Officially Underway (a text version)