ACTION ITEM from Citizens' Council for Health Freedom

Dear CCHF friends and supporters,

Please begin now contacting your legislators about the Obamacare Exchange bills which are likely to be voted on March 4 in the House and March 7 in the Senate. They want the final bill to Gov. Dayton on March 22. Plan to join me and Adam (our hardworking CCHF legislative intern) in the State Capitol when they take full floor votes on the Exchange bills. Email Barbara to let us know you'll be there: barbara@cchfreedom.org.

There are also two very bad bills you've never heard about in the news. See below. Please come to the hearings!

Your support is urgently needed in this battle. We're working every day (and even evenings) to read and interpret the bills, suggest amendments, inform policymakers, testify, tweet question suggestions to legislators during hearings, and hamper liberal plans. Click here to donate today to our fight against Obamacare and Big Government.

Three Bills:

1) Minnesota Obamacare Exchange (federal takeover center):
The bill has been rushed through the legislature. It is headed to its final committee in both the House and in the Senate. The bill could be voted on by the full House and the full Senate next week. However, the expectation is March 4 (House) and March 7 (Senate). After that, it must go to conference committee. If you need to understand the Exchange better, please, go to our Exchange Realities #1 - #8. Or follow my tweets on the topic at @twilabrase or by following #MNHIX.

A major difference between the House and Senate bills is the funding. The House bill (HF5), authored by Rep. Joe Atkins (D-Inver Grove Hgts), uses a 3.5% withhold to fund $60+ million in annual operations (3.5% of the individual's premium is kept by the Exchange before the rest is sent to the health plan). The Senate bill (SF1), authored by Sen. Tony Lourey (D-Kerrick), uses the Health Impact Fee (tax) out of the general fund. I testified in House Tax Committee as to how marketplaces are voluntary and live or die according to whether customers purchase a product. The Exchange is not a marketplace. 

The other distinction is data-sharing. The House bill has more detailed requirements for letting the public know about what private data is being shared with whom (state agencies, federal government agencies and "other entities"). The Senate has no requirements for public disclosure:

(b) Government data of the Minnesota Insurance Marketplace on individuals,
employees of employers, and employers using the Minnesota Insurance Marketplace are
private data on individuals or nonpublic data. The Minnesota Insurance Marketplace
may share not public data with state and federal agencies and other entities if the board
determines that the exchange of the data is necessary to carry out the functions of the
Minnesota Insurance Marketplace. State agencies shall share not public data with the
Minnesota Insurance Marketplace if the board determines that the exchange of the
data is reasonably necessary to carry out the functions of the Minnesota Insurance
Marketplace.

2) Gutting Minnesota Medical Privacy Laws:
A bill authored by a Democrat and co-authored by a Republican will harmonize Minnesota's strong privacy laws with the federal HIPAA "no-privacy" rule. In other words, Minnesota will no longer be protected from HIPAA. We'll all be under HIPAA's lack of privacy protections. HIPAA allows 2.2 million entities to have access to private medical records without patient consent. That's a federal number!

The only good thing about HIPAA is that is allows stronger state laws to supercede the permissive disclosures allowed by HIPAA. That's why we've had stronger laws for a decade. But House File 824 will force Minnesota to follow HIPAA. House File 824 is authored by Rep. Melissa Hortman (D-Brooklyn Park) and co-authored by Rep. Jim Abeler (R-Anoka). As of yet there is no Senate author.  No hearings are scheduled yet, but please prepare to come to hearings to oppose this bill. If you can testify, that would be great too. Once all the state privacy laws are changed, it may be very difficult to get our medical privacy back. Subscribe to the HHS Policy committee to get the hearing announcement, or stay tuned to CCHF emails.

3) Exempting MN Dept. of Health from Genetic Privacy Law:
House File 589 authored by Rep. Phyllis Kahn (D- Mpls) would exempt the Minnesota Department of Health from the MN genetic privacy law.

Last session the MN Dept of Health tried to get a complete exemption from the MN genetic privacy law because they feared another lawsuit like the Baby DNA lawsuit CCHF helped nine families file against MDH. The parents won in the MN Supreme Court on November 16, 2011.

Why do state health officials want an exemption? Because, just like with Baby DNA, there are all sorts of other biological specimens from individuals that MDH has taken and stored without legislative authority -- specimens NOBODY knows about. Rep. Mary Liz Holberg (R-Lakeville) gave MDH a one-year "get out of jail free" exemption. This session they are back with a bill that would exempt them from the MN genetic privacy law and give them the authority to collect, store, use and disseminate any biological specimens AND health data (cancer registries, birth defect registries, etc) they have or get or take.

Last session, as part of the deal, MDH officials promised Rep. Holberg a list of what they have stored in the department but that requirement wasn't in the Baby DNA bill that passed, so they feel under no obligation to provide the information. NOTE: due to our efforts and your support the collection, storage, use and sharing of Baby DNA wouldn't be under this sweeping exemption from the genetic privacy law. Baby DNA would still be protected. HF 589 will soon be heard in the Data Practices Subcommittee of the House Civil Law Committee. Subscribe to the committee meeting announcements for hearing notification. Or stay tuned to CCHF emails and prepare to join me at the hearing.

I hope you can join us in the fight!

Please donate generously to support this critical work!

Twila

-- 

Twila Brase, RN, PHN
President
Citizens' Council for Health Freedom (CCHF)
161 St. Anthony Ave. Ste. 923
Saint Paul, MN 55103

651-646-8935

www.cchfreedom.org

The deceit of Congress and the folly of the American public

The following was forwarded to me in an email from a friend of mine. Thought it worth sharing more widely.

---

I was in my neighborhood restaurant and was seated behind a group  of jubilant individuals celebrating the successful passing of the recent health care bill. I could not finish my breakfast. This is what ensued:

They were a diverse group of several races and both sexes. I heard a young man exclaim, “Isn’t Obama like Jesus Christ? I mean, after all, he is healing the sick.” A young woman enthusiastically proclaimed, “Yeah, and he does it for free. I cannot believe anyone would think that a free market would work for health care. Another said, ‘The stupid Republicans want us all to starve to death so they can inherit all of the power. Obama should be made a Saint for what he did for those of us less fortunate.”

At this, I had more than enough.

I arose from my seat, mustering all the restraint I could find, and approached their table. “Please excuse me; may I impose upon you for one moment?” They smiled and welcomed me to the conversation. I stood at the end of their table, smiled as best I could and began an experiment.

“I would like to give one of you my house. It will cost you no money and I will pay all of the expenses and taxes for as long as you live there. Anyone interested?”

They looked at each other in astonishment. “Why would you do something like that?” asked a young man, “There isn’t anything for free in this world.” They began to laugh at me, as they did not realize this man had just made my point.

“I am serious, I will give you my house for free, no money what so ever. Anyone interested?” In unison, a resounding “H*** Yeah” fills the room.

“Since there are too many of you, I will have to make a choice as to who receives this money-free bargain.” I noticed an elderly couple was paying attention to the spectacle unfolding before their eyes, the old man shaking his head in apparent disgust. “I tell you what; I will give it to the one of you most willing to obey my rules.”

Again, they looked at one another, an expression of bewilderment on their faces. The perky young woman asked, “What are the rules?” I smiled and said, “I don’t know. I have not yet defined them. However, it is a free home that I offer you.”

They giggled amongst themselves, the youngest of which said, “What an old coot. He must be crazy to give away his home. Go take your meds, old man.”

I smiled and leaned into the table a bit further. “I am serious, this is a legitimate offer.”

They gaped at me for a moment.

“I’ll take it you old fool. Where are the keys?” boasted the youngest among them.

“Then I presume you accept ALL of my terms then?” I asked.

The elderly couple seemed amused and entertained as they watched from the privacy of their table.

“Oh h*** yeah! Where do I sign up?”

I took a napkin and wrote, “I give this man my home, without the burden of financial obligation, so long as he accepts and abides by the terms that I shall set forth upon consummation of this transaction.” I signed it and handed it to the young man who eagerly scratched out his signature.

“Where are the keys to my new house?” he asked in a mocking tone of voice.

All eyes were upon us as I stepped back from the table, pulling the keys from pocket and dangling them before the excited new homeowner.

“Now that we have entered into this binding contract, witnessed by all of your friends, I have decided upon the conditions you are obligated to adhere from this point forward. You may only live in the house for one hour a day. You will not use anything inside of the home. You will obey me without question or resistance. I expect complete loyalty and admiration for this gift I bestow upon you. You will accept my commands and wishes with enthusiasm, no matter the nature. Your morals and principles shall be as mine. You will vote as I do, think as I do and do it with blind faith. These are my terms. Here are your keys.”

I reached the keys forward and the young man looked at me dumbfounded.

“Are you out of your mind? Who would ever agree to those ridiculous terms?” the young man appeared irritated.

“You did when you signed this contract before reading it, understanding it and with the full knowledge that I would provide my conditions only after you committed to the agreement,” was all I said.

The elderly man chuckled as his wife tried to restrain him. I was looking at a now silenced and bewildered group of people.

“You can shove that stupid deal up you’re a** old man, I want no part of it” exclaimed the now infuriated young man.

“You have committed to the contract, as witnessed by all of your friends; you cannot get out of the deal unless I agree to it. I do not intend to let you free now that I have you ensnared. I am the power you agreed to. I am the one you blindly and without thought chose to enslave yourself to. In short, I am your Master.”

At this, the table of celebrating individuals became a unified group against the unfairness of the deal.

After a few moments of unrepeatable comments and slurs, I revealed my true intent.

“What I did to you is what this administration and congress did to you with the health care legislation. I easily suckered you in and then revealed the real cost of the bargain. Your folly was in the belief that you can have something you did not earn; that you are entitled to that which you did not earn; that you willingly allowed someone else to think for you. Your failure to research, study and inform yourself permitted reason to escape you. You have entered into a trap from which you cannot flee. Your only chance of freedom is if your new Master gives it to you. A freedom that is given can also be taken away; therefore, it is not freedom.”

With that, I tore up the napkin and placed it before the astonished young man.

“This is the nature of your new health care legislation.”

I turned away to leave these few in thought and contemplation and was surprised by applause.

The elderly gentleman, who was clearly entertained, shook my hand enthusiastically and said, “Thank you Sir, these kids don’t understand Liberty these days.” He refused to allow me to pay my bill as he said, “You earned this one, it is an honor to pick up the tab.”

I shook his hand in thanks, leaving the restaurant somewhat humbled, and sensing a glimmer of hope for my beloved country.

Use reason,

~ Clifford A.

ObamaCare will NOT reduce the deficit

ObamaCare will not reduce the deficit regardless of what the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) says. Here's why:

At Reason.com, economist Veronique de Rugy rued the “fantasy at work in many official health care cost projections," including a purposely limited report from the CBO that the [NY] Times and Democrats have used to argue ObamaCare as a cost-saver. de Rugy wrote:

"[The CBO report] assumes that Medicare’s sustainable growth rate mechanism, which would have reduced physician payments by 21 percent in 2010 alone, actually takes effect. Medicare reimbursement rates are legislated to decline over time but basically never do. Instead, Congress routinely enacts what's known as the ‘doc fix,’ or upward payment adjustments. As Politico reported in May, ‘In 2010 alone, Congress has already headed off three scheduled payment drops – in January, March and April.’ In fact, as the CBO notes, Congress has kicked the can down the road on payment reductions yet again, putting off the reduction in payment rates until at least December 2010.

ObamaCare doesn't reduce medical costs under even the rosiest of scenarios (that is, projections that take seriously all its creators' assumptions). What we can be certain of is that this legislation increases the amount of money taxpayers will be forced by law to pay for health insurance to the tune of $420 billion over the next 10 years. Claims about ObamaCare’s deficit-reduction effects depend on new taxes growing even faster than new spending. Despite the persistent claims of Peter Orszag and other defenders of the president's health care legislation, ObamaCare has nothing to do with cutting costs."

---

Let me repeat that last phrase: "ObamaCare has NOTHING to do with CUTTING COSTS." [Emphasis added.]

Congress gets at least one repeal of ObamaScare right!

Recently the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation repealing the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) created by the President's healthcare law. The IPAB would have been a powerful new board of 15 unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats whose job will be to save money by setting reimbursement rates for specific procedures – giving them the power to deny care to seniors. The law required no public comment or transparency prior to a decision and the board is authorized to make unilateral decisions that should be made by patients and their doctors.

Will this repeal pass the Senate? Will Obama sign it if it does get through the Senate?

Keep your eyes and ears open.

Health care bill creates “ObamaCare University”

The program is unassumingly titled the “United States Public Health Sciences Track,” and it’s among the many items hidden inside the massive, 2,000-plus-page health care reform package adopted by Congress in 2010.

But it is anything but innocent.

Instead, it is a first-of-its kind, federally funded and federally administered civilian medical school that grants advanced degrees (post-graduate, post-doctoral and technology) in medicine, dentistry, nursing and pharmacy, among others.
 
It will be run by Obama administration officials, namely, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who will determine the number of students who can enroll, and the Surgeon General, who will decide how to admit students, to recruit instructors and to write the curricula, among other tasks. Administration officials will act like college deans with the Surgeon General in charge of operations and the HHS Secretary in charge of funding.

[Sounds ghoulish, already, doesn’t it? Can’t you just imagine the powers this gives government over how and why health care is administered or withheld by medical professionals? Can you imagine what a Stalin or a Hitler might have done with such a tool in their hands?]

Like the grants and contract sections of the health care reform law that require the use of race-based criteria [really?!?] for awarding federal money to hospitals and schools for medical training programs, the Surgeon General is required to create race-based selection procedures for admitting students into what we’ve nicknamed “ObamaCare University.”
 
The more we know about the health care reform bill, the more unconstitutional and problematic it gets. The establishment of ObamaCare U and its race-based provisions reinforce the importance of striking down this law.

[Adapted from a report by Diane Cohen, an attorney with the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation]

On ObamaCare’s manipulation of markets

Imagine this:

Obama—”We need to bend the health care cost curve. I want the food industry to cut chocolate sales by 25 percent."

Industry—“But we would lose $100 million from the cutback.”

Obama—“Just raise the price of celery to recoup the $100 million.”

Industry—“Nobody will buy celery at the inflated price.”

Obama—“Not to worry. We'll impose a fine on any family that doesn't buy a sufficient quantity of celery.”

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

Try this:

Obama—“A lot of sick people can't get insurance. I want the industry to cover pre-existing conditions.”

Industry—“But we would lose a fortune if we did.”

Obama—“Just raise the premiums paid by healthy people and sell more policies to those who aren't insured.”

Industry—“If we have to cover pre-existing conditions, healthy people won't buy policies until they're sick.”

Obama—“Not to worry. We'll impose a fine on any family that doesn't buy a policy now.”

---

[Thanks to Robert Levy in the “Cato Policy Report” (March/April 2010)

Minnesota GOP has no “brand” and appears ignorant of dangers of ObamaCare

The following message was received from Twila Brase and the Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom:

The ObamaCare health insurance exchange bill, (Minnesota) HF 2290, is deceptive. It talks only about a "marketplace." It never mentions the word "exchange," but that's exactly what it is. A new government-established agency to comply with ObamaCare law and myriad regulations.

The bill will implement the ObamaCare Exchange, the command and control structure that is key to the federal government takeover of health care in each state. The first set of proposed Exchange regulations include the word "require" a whopping 811 times.

The Minnesota House co-authors of the bill, HF 2290, are Taxes Chairman Rep. Greg Davids (R-Preston), Commerce and Regulatory Reform Chairman Rep. Joe Hoppe (R-Chaska), and Health and Human Services Finance Chairman Rep. Jim Abeler (R-Anoka).

To contact them by email: rep.greg.davids@house.mn, rep.joe.hoppe@house.mn, rep.jim.abeler@house.mn

For additional information please see CCHF Press Releases:
"Marketplace" Legislation Will Implement ObamaCare and Government Takeover.

DFL press conference, Feb 16, 2012

All House Co-Authors

HF 2290

House GOPers sign onto exchange bill, Jake Grovum, Politics in Minnesota, Feb 16, 2012

Keeping you informed and engaged,

Twila Brase, RN, PHN
President, CCHF
651-646-8935

Citizens' Council for Health Freedom (CCHF)
161 St. Anthony Ave Ste 923
Saint Paul, MN 55103
Phone: 651-646-8935

www.cchfreedom.org

A non-technical narrative about health care reform

Those who allege that health care prices are being skewed by the health insurance industry are correct, but that is really our (us, the insurance and health care consumers) fault.

As our culture has changed and more and more Americans have defected from taking personal responsibility, the insurance industry saw an increasing opportunity for profit. (We really can't blame the industry for wanting to make more money. I'm sure the company you work for wants to make money and I know the company I work for wants to do so.)

How it used to work

You see, when I was a kid, "medical insurance" (not "health insurance") was owned by many people (but not all) and it was used to cover what today would be known as "major medical" costs. When my parents needed to take one of their seven children to the doctor or hospital, they paid for the visit in full out of their own pocket. If they couldn't pay all at once, they made arrangements to pay it off over time—and they kept their word. And, no doubt, good-hearted doctors and hospitals offered an informal "sliding scale" of fees. Wealthy families probably paid more for services than poorer families visiting the same office or hospital for the same service.

We didn't get check-ups every year. We also didn't have a battery of tests performed with every checkup, but we all survived—as did just about everyone else in my generation.

But handling medical expenses under this "plan" meant self-denial (saving for emergencies, setting aside money and not spending it on every new titillating bauble that hit the market). Unfortunately, most of my generation didn't like that more or less austere lifestyle.

So, along came the insurance industry to "help" us out. Instead of "saving" money, this generation would buy a "product" called "health insurance" that would permit them to visit the doctor with little or no out-of-pocket expense—except for the money being taken out of their paychecks every month for the insurance. As you know, having a payroll deduction means it's money you seldom or never miss.

You also know, if you've read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises, about moral hazard. This new insurance reduced risk for us, the insured—thus making us less careful about how we spend the insurance money. This, in turn, drives the prices of insurance up, because there are more dollars chasing the supply of goods and services.

Meanwhile, access to more money flowing from the insurance industry drove doctors and hospitals to invest in new products and services to "attract" their customers more frequently—more checkups, more tests, more fancy gadgets. Do so tended to drive up the cost of health care which, in turn, drove up the cost of health insurance. Of course, the more money the insurance companies were handling, the more profits the insurance companies garnered from their financial and operational entities.

Profits everywhere went up: doctors made more money, hospitals typically made more money, the insurance companies made more money all from processes that drove the cost of health care upward in a vicious spiral. Add in the whole new field of tort law exploited by the legal community against doctors and hospitals knowing that the insurance companies would end up paying and you have one huge problem. And Congress won't address tort reform because 40 percent or more of Congress is made up of attorneys.

All of this really stems—as I said—from us (the insurance and health care consumers) who willingly engage in the purchase of "health" insurance which, in turn, created for all the participants a moral hazard—a willingness to be more careless about our spending because it seemed like the money really wasn't our own.

Health care reform?

Yes. We need it. But, we have met the enemy, and it is us.

Furthermore, ObamaCare is not the right answer. Tort reform and new approaches to insurance industry competitiveness across state lines is a very good place to start.

Thanks for listening.

Still fighting the Obama machine on health care

Here's a letter I just sent to multiple newspapers by employing Pres'ent Obama's technology machine AGAINST his agenda.

You can do the same by CLICKING HERE.

To: Minneapolis Star Tribune, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Rochester (MN) Post-Bulletin, Finance and Commerce, Minnesota Daily, and the Wall Street Journal

Subject: Americans are waking up

Americans are waking up to the fact that the so-called health care "reforms" current before Congress are not reforms at all. The legislation is nothing more than a federal takeover of a huge economic sector and another step toward socialism.

Socialist/collectivist action has never built a great nation. The only evidence of history is that such action is only capable of consuming the wealth of nations -- national wealth and welfare that has been built through individual effort and initiative in the context of personal liberty and economic freedom.

Take another look at the fraud and waste in the current Medicare program and ask if we really want to enlarge that kind of "government efficiency" (falsely so-called) for more Americans.

Stop and think! We need to stop this hugely expensive boondoggle that will do nothing but aid in the destruction of the U.S. economy as we have known it.

Job-killing Health Care Reform

Eric Staib, writing in The Free Market magazine, calls Obamacare what it is, a new "tax" on labor that will lead to increasing levels of unemployment and lower net earnings for employees all across the U.S.

"According to pages 269-273 of the [present version of the] bill, employers of full-time workers will be required to cover at least 72.5 percent of the premium of the least expensive health-insurance plan available that fulfills the bill's minimum criteria of 'acceptable coverage.' In cases in which family coverage is provided, 62.5 percent of the premium is to be borne by the employer," reports Staib. "Depending on the specific plan and other variables such as location, this amounts to a direct labor tax of approximately $300 per month for an individual, or nearly $700 for family coverage."

When a company hires an employee, they negotiate a pay arrangement in which the value of the employee's efforts on behalf of the firm must meet or exceed the amount of money paid out by the firm to retain the employee. In the final analysis, it makes no difference to the employer whether some of the money, all of the money, or none of the money paid out actually ends up in the employee's hands. Consider the following scenarios:

	Scenario
Expense Category	No. 1	No. 2	No. 3
Base Wages	$ 1,733	$ 1,433	$ 1,033
Employer-paid Taxes	$ 133	$ 133	$ 133
Cost of Fringe Benefits	$ 43	$ 343	$ 743
Cost of Training	$ 26	$ 26	$ 26
Cost of Safety Equipment	$ 6	$ 6	$ 6
Other Costs	$ 67	$ 67	$ 67
Monthly Cost of Employee	$ 2,008	$ 2,008	$ 2,008

In these scenarios, we are considering an employee that is worth at least $2,008 per month to his present employer. In the scenarios 1, 2, and 3, the only two factors that change are 1) Cost of Fringe Benefits (e.g., adding in mandated health-care insurance coverage costs) and 2) Base Wages (which are adjusted downward so that the "Monthly Cost of Employee" remains steady.

Scenario No. 2 represents the addition of $300 per month in individual health-care coverage costs. The increase in fringe benefits costs for this typical $10-per-hour employee from $43 per month to $343 per month calculates to almost 700% (698%). For the employer to stay par on the total cost of this employee, the employee's wages would have to drop from $10-per-hour to $8.27-per-hour, a decrease of 17%.

Scenario No. 3 looks at the addition of $700 per month in family health-care coverage as mandated under the Obamacare legislation. Adding in this $700 per month in fringe benefits (really, a "tax", since it will be mandated by the federal government) is a leap of more than 1600% (1628%) in the cost of fringe benefits for this employer. Again, for the employer to stay at par (i.e., the total cost of the employee remaining at $2,008 per month), the employee's wages would have to be slashed 40%, from his or her current $10-per-hour to $5.96-per-hour.

Most rational employers know that an employee that is presently making $10-per-hour is not likely to accept a 17% pay-cut simply because of this new government mandate, the likely outcome is that the employer will lay off the present employee and hire two or more part-time employees not covered under the Obamacare mandated "tax." In the alternative, the employer may lay off the existing $10-per-hour employee and seek to hire a replacement employee that is willing to work for $8.27-per-hour or less but still deliver at least $2,008 in value to the business. A third choice would be for the employer to simply lay off some of its $10-per-hour employees and try to make the remaining employees simply produce at higher levels. If all three of these options fail to sustain profitability in the firm, the employer will ultimately be forced to close its doors and lay off all of its employees.

Under any of these options, real wages in the U.S. economy will plummet and unemployment level will dramatically increase (at least for full-time workers). This is just bad economic policy.

Works Cited

Staib, Eric M. "The Health-Care Tax." The Free Market, December 2009: 1-3.



©2009 Richard D. Cushing

Health care message I just sent to several Senators

Here's the message I just sent to several Democrat "bluedog" Senators:

Senator, you are too smart to be bullied into doing something that you KNOW (in your heart) is BAD FOR THE UNITED STATES, BAD for the U.S. TAXPAYER, and is merely taking this great nation further down the road to SOCIALISM.

Socialist/collectivist philosophies have NEVER BUILT a GREAT NATION! The only evidence of history is that socialist/collectivist thinking is ONLY capable of CONSUMING the wealth of nations built through individual efforts and initiative.

Take another look at all the FRAUD AND WASTE in the current Medicare program and tell us (voters) that you REALLY WANT TO ENLARGE that kind "government efficiency" for more Americans?  And at what cost?

Medicare ESTIMATE (1967) for spending in 1990 = $12 billion; Medicare ACTUAL spending in 1990 = $110 billion (off by a factor of 900%)!

Medicaid DSH ESTIMATE (1987) for spending in 1992 = $1 billion; Medicaid ACTUAL spending in 1992 = $17 billion (off by a factor of 1700%)!

What makes you think that ANY ESTIMATE OF SOME TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS TODAY for health care will be any more accurate than the boondoggle estimates of the past?

Stop and think, Senator.  Vote AGAINST one more hugely expensive boondoggle that will only help DESTROY the U.S. as we know it.

Thank you.

/s/ Richard D. Cushing

Wary of the Health Care boondoggle

Here's my latest letter to the editor, sent to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Finance and Commerce, Minnesota Daily, USA Today, and The Washington Post:

Don't be fooled by the unrealistic gimmicks in the Senate heath care plan, such as a "Medicare Commission" or a "Failsafe Budgeting Mechanism." This is nothing more than the absurdity of some empty commitment to being fiscally responsible at some point in the future while spending billions or trillions of taxpayer dollars today.
 

The federal government has never been able to accurately predict health care spending. In 1967 the estimate for Medicare spending in 1990 was $12 billion. The ACTUAL spending in 1990 was $110 billion (off by a factor of 9 times). Similarly, Medicaids DSH (disproportionate share hospital) program had a $1 billion estimate in 1987 for spending in 1992 (just 5 years hence). The actual spending for DSH in 1992 was $17 billion (17 times more than estimated).

What makes us believe that this Congress -- already demonstrated to be profligate spenders -- can estimate any more accurately just because they're starting with $900 billion to $1.2 trillion as their estimates?

Stop them!

Now, it's your turn to write to them -- and to your Senators and Representatives.  Do it now!

Take action against health care reform TODAY! It's easy!

Here's the letter I just sent to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the St. Paul Pioneer Press, USA Today, the NY Times, and more...

The major labor unions have been working behind the scenes since the 1980s to get a "universal health care" provision through Congress.  Contrary to popular belief, this legislation is NOT about the common man, but about payback to the unions for the election of Democrats.

The goal of the unions has been nothing more than to a) place a "universal burden" on all businesses, including non-union shops; and/or b) to reduce the burden of health care on big union shops like the automakers and steel mills so that the unions have more money to go after for increased wages or other benefits.

Now is the time for U.S. citizens to tell Congress to stand up and do what is right by stopping this economically devastating legislation.  We -- the taxpayers -- simply cannot afford what Congress is doing TO us in the name of doing something FOR us.

Here's what we need to do : Follow the directions closely

1.  Follow this link (CLICK HERE!)

2.  Put in your Zip code. You will be redirected to a page where you enter all your address information.

3.  Check all the boxes for all of your local papers.

4.  NOW CAREFUL THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART! DO NOT CLICK NEXT. Instead Click " 2. Compose Letter " this is in the top middle of the page. This will allow you to compose your own letter to the editor against the healthcare bill.

5. Write your letter to the editor against the health-care bill.

6. Now click Next

7. Preview your letter to the editor and click "Send Email"

8. Pass this on to others and lets flood the papers with anti-health-care opinions.

DO IT NOW!

Obama's Top Secret Motivation for a Federal Take-over of Health Care

Why is Obama so intent on getting universal health coverage in place as soon as possible? Is it just his socialist heart driving him to do what he thinks is the right thing to do for people?

Not on your life!

There is a hidden motive that has NOT been revealed in anything I’ve seen written about this administration’s hard-driving campaign for so-called “health care reform.”

What is that hidden motive?

The labor unions! In particular, there are the UAW (United Auto Workers) and USW (United Steel Workers) unions that have been clamoring for government-funded universal health coverage for nearly three decades. Then, do not forget how the federal government’s shared ownership of the GM and Chrysler with the unions’ trust funds plays into all of this.

Back in 1981, health insurance for union employees and retirees was costing U.S. automakers more than $400 per automobile. A few short years ago, that number had skyrocketed to nearly $3,000 per vehicle. Is it any wonder that Representative John Dingell (D-MI), Michigan's (and Congress's) longest-serving Member of Congress has been a champion of universal health care for more than 50 years -- that' right, since 1957. And, yes, it's the same Michigan that is home to Ford, Chrysler and General Motors. Is there a connection? Of course there is a connection!

Just imagine what happens if government-sponsored universal health insurance is made available. Suddenly the manufacture of automobiles at GM and Chrysler becomes about $3,000 per vehicle more profitable. Suddenly the unions have another $3,000 per vehicle to bargain for — again!

Make no mistake about it: Just like the “Card Check” legislation, universal government-funded health coverage is JUST ONE MORE PAY-BACK to BIG LABOR for the part the unions played in getting Mr. Obama into office in the first place.

STOP THE PAY-BACK! Contact your Congressmen and Senators and tell them that we cannot afford another multi-trillion-dollar political payback laid on the backs of the American taxpayer (the roughly 40% of us who actually pay taxes).

No Founding Father He

From ThePatriotPost

Democrat Stealth-Care

You've got to read this article from the Wall Street Journal.