GOOD NEWS: Rep. Steve King (R.-Iowa) has the signatures of 170 House members on a petition to vote this year on a repeal of Obamacare.  King doesn’t have a multi-million dollar campaign for this effort, but he has something more valuable: the support of the American people. August 30 story; source HERE. From Cong. King's website: Read and print the full document here. A picture of the signed document is here.  A list of Members who have signed the document is available here. [Note: this list is from February, so may not have been updated.]

NFIB Joins Lawsuit to Overturn the Healthcare Reform Law

Public sours on health care reform as midterms loom

“Unfortunately, there still is a great deal of confusion about what is in [the reform law] and what isn’t,” Sebelius told ABC News Radio in an interview Monday.

“So, we have a lot of reeducation to do,” Sebelius said.

Cult of competence, I believe they were once called.

One is left wondering if this will be a standard PSA-style push or something more along the lines of a camp environment. This Healthcare.gov video offers a pretty clear look at the end result of reeducation efforts. Start studying, keep the eyes vacant, the accent regionally neutral, and the tone uniformly, creepily pleasant while repeating your Obama talking points, folks. Read more here.

Putting the Brakes on ObamaCare

How a Republican Congress could begin the process of repealing this unpopular law.

If Republicans take control of one or both houses of Congress this fall, many will have been elected with a promise to "repeal and replace" ObamaCare. But what are their options, really? There likely will be an initial showdown, but President Obama will surely veto any challenge to the law, and it would be hard to imagine mustering the votes to overturn it.

Information is the key weapon. Republicans can use congressional hearings to explain what ObamaCare is doing to the economy and the health sector. Their strongest cases would be built around jobs, the cost of health care, and the rising deficit.

If evidence shows that looming mandates on employers are crippling job-creation, they should be repealed. If health costs are rising, as they inevitably will be, Congress needs to hold hearings to investigate the causes and explain why the offending taxes and regulations must be repealed.

Here are six key strategies that a Republican Congress could employ to put on the brakes:

• Defund it. House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio has vowed to choke off funding for implementation of the legislation, starting with parts that are especially egregious such as the "army of new IRS agents" needed to police compliance.

While Republicans could target the most damaging provisions of the legislation and tie their defunding measures to appropriations legislation that the president wants and needs to sign, they'd better be ready for battles. When former House Speaker Newt Gingrich lost a stand-down with President Clinton over closing down the government in 1996, it was widely seen as a setback for GOP efforts to scale back big government.

• Dismantle it. To focus committee action and floor votes, Republicans can look for provisions in the law that Democrats are on record as opposing. For example, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) has said that the new federal program to fund long-term care—the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act, or CLASS Act—is "a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of." Mr. Conrad and five of his Democratic colleagues sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) before the legislation passed opposing the program and expressing "grave concerns" about its fiscal sustainability. Read more here.

COMMENT:  As the old song goes, "And the days dwindle down to a precious few...". Just a few days remain for everyone to make their voices heard in no uncertain terms.

ACTION:  Tennesseans go HERE to send your congressman an email. Go HERE to find phone numbers (even better than email).
Out-of-state subscribers:  First scroll to the end of this email to see if your congressman is on the target list compiled by AmeriPAC. If he or she is not, the go HERE to find contact information for your congressman.

1. President Launches Last Push on Health-Care Overhaul

The president vowed to rally Americans and wavering lawmakers alike. White House aides said a pair of trips next week will be followed by a stream of public and private lobbying. The White House wants final votes by month's end.

President Obama outlines his three-part proposal for health care reform in an address at the White House. Courtesy Fox News. 

"At stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem," Mr. Obama told a crowd of white-coated doctors and nurses in the East Room, where a year ago he started the drive for the legislation.

With polls showing that the legislation is unpopular and congressional Democrats bracing for big losses in this fall's elections, the president urged them to ignore the politics. "I do not know how this plays politically, but I know it's right," he said. "Let's get it done."

Democrats and the White House are balancing high risks and rewards. Passing the health overhaul would fulfill a decades-old Democratic dream, bringing insurance to some 30 million Americans, and represent the greatest expansion of coverage since Medicare was created in 1965. But if the public judges the overhaul harshly, it is likely to cost some Democrats their seats, and the party's majority in the House could be at risk.

The White House argues that, despite the negative poll numbers, Americans will like the measure if it becomes law, since the focus then could shift from the legislative process to the measure's impact. Polling does find stronger support for the bill's individual provisions than for the package as a whole.

Mr. Obama Wednesday also highlighted a handful of Republican ideas used in the legislation. Republicans dismissed the gesture as insufficient.

"You can't add a couple of Republican sprinkles on the top of a 2,700-page bill and claim that it's bipartisan," said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio).

Rejecting Republican calls to start again, the president said that given the "honest and substantial differences between the parties," there was no point. "Everything there is to say about health care has been said," he said to laughter, "and just about everybody has said it."

For the first time, the president explicitly called on Congress to use a procedural technique that will let the Senate give its final approval with a simple majority vote. He didn't use the word for that technique—"reconciliation"—but characterized the process as a way of calling a simple "up or down vote" that has been used for big bills before.

Republicans say the reconciliation process was never intended for such major legislation. "History is clear: Big legislation always requires big majorities," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said on the floor Wednesday.

Democrats need to approve the changes in the Senate through reconciliation because they no longer have 60 Senate votes necessary to end a standard debate, due to the loss last month of the Massachusetts seat long held by the late Edward Kennedy. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs downplayed the significance of the reconciliation measure, calling it a set of "technical corrections" to the original Senate measure. The reconciliation version contains some significant differences from the Senate bill, including taxes on the wealthy and lower levies on high-value health-insurance plans.

Under the Democratic plan, the process would work like this: First, the House would vote on the bill that the Senate approved in late December. House leaders hope to pass both that Senate bill, and then the reconciliation package, by March 17. After that, the Senate would need to pass the reconciliation bill. By month's end, Democrats hope, the measure would go to the president to be signed into law.

The final push by Mr. Obama amounts to a critical test of his powers of persuasion. Democrats could face a tough decision, balancing the risk of passing potentially unpopular legislation against the risk of inaction and the stigma of having labored for more than a year to produce nothing. Democratic leaders say lawmakers who already voted yes once will be attacked no matter what, but will be in better shape politically if they have something to show for it.

White House aides vowed the president would use all tactics at his disposal to rally support. That includes speeches around the country, starting with a trip to Philadelphia on Monday, media interviews and direct communication with supporters. Read more here.

3. Hatch: Biden Will ‘Go Down in History as a Real Dolt’ If He Over-Rules Senate Parliamentarian and Lets The Dems Pass Health Care Without 60 Votes
Thursday, March 04, 2010
By Christopher Neefus

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) (Congressional photo)

(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said that Vice President Joe Biden would “go down in history as a real dolt” if he used his power as president of the Senate to overrule the Senate parliamentarian on the legitimacy of procedural tactics that could allow the Democrats to enact their health-care reform bill without getting the normally required 60 votes in the Senate.
 
Because the Democrat caucus in the Senate no longer has 60 members with which to end debate on a bill (and prevent a Republican filibuster), it is being reported that the Democrats may attempt to pass changes to their original health care bill with just 51 votes through a process called reconciliation.
 
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)

In the entire health care debate, among all the competing lawmakers, politicians, experts and pundits, there's just one person who has seen things from both sides of the political aisle. That is Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama, who was elected as a Democrat in 2008 and was part of the House Democratic caucus until last Dec. 22, when he switched sides to become a Republican. (Republican-turned-Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter doesn't count, because he switched parties in April 2009, before the current health care debate got underway.)

Given Griffith's unique perspective -- he is also a doctor, with 30 years' experience as an oncologist -- perhaps he has some insight into why the White House and his former Democratic allies in Congress continue to press forward on a national health care bill despite widespread public opposition.

It's gotten personal, Griffith says. "You have personalities who have bet the farm, bet their reputations, on shoving a health care bill through the Congress. It's no longer about health care reform. It's all about ego now. The president's ego. Nancy Pelosi's ego. This is about personalities, saving face, and it has very little to do with what's good for the American people."

Conflicts driven by personal feelings can lead to self-destructive outcomes. Ask Griffith whether Speaker Pelosi, his old leader, would accept losing Democratic control of the House as the price for passing the health care bill, and he answers quickly. "Oh yeah. This is a trophy for the speaker, it's a trophy for several committee chairs, and it's a trophy for the president." It does not seem to matter that if Democrats lose the House, the speaker will no longer be speaker, the chairmen will no longer be chairmen, and the president will be significantly weakened.

As Griffith sees his former colleagues, Democratic leaders have become so consumed with the idea of achieving the historical goal of a national health care system that they are able to explain away the scores of opinion polls over the last six months that show people solidly opposed to the Democratic proposal.

The polls are wrong, they say. Or the polls are contradictory. Or the polls actually show that people love the health care plan. And even if the polls are right, and people hate the plan, real leaders don't govern by following the polls. So just pass the bill.

That's easy for Democrats like Pelosi, who occupy safe seats. Not so for dozens of moderate House Democrats whose votes are required for passage, but who face likely defeat for it. "I don't think there are that many moderate or conservative Democrats who want to be sacrificial representatives," says Griffith. Read more here.

See: We are 'one vote away' in the House.

NEWS FLASH:
Despite his drawbacks, don't think Brown's election made a real difference?
Senator Says Deal Was Reached on Pro-Abortion Health Care Before Brown Win
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- In one of the first concrete confirmations that the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts disrupted the effort to approve the pro-abortion health care bill, a top senator says a deal was in place to approve it but Brown's election prevented it from going forward. Sen. Tom Harkin, the chairman of the Senate Health Committee, said negotiators from the White House, Senate and House reached a final deal on healthcare reform days before Scott Brown’s victory. But with Brown becoming the 41st vote in the Senate against the bill and for a filibuster, the latest revelation shows how agonizingly close Democrats came to passing a final healthcare bill in time for President Barack Obama's State of the Union address. Harkin, who was present for the talks, told The Hill “we had an agreement, with the House, the White House and the Senate. We sent it to [the Congressional Budget Office] to get scored and then Tuesday happened and we didn't get it back.” He said negotiators had an agreement in hand on Friday, January 15. Harkin made clear that negotiators had reached a final deal on the entire bill. Now, Democratic lawmakers have since turned their attention to passing a comprehensive -- instead of a scaled-down -- healthcare bill, using the reconciliation process to make changes and approving smaller bills as a lead-in to that controversial idea.

Speaking for Scott Brown - He was sworn in yesterday so it is offically Senator Brown   -- his campaign produced an excellent ad called The Massachusetts Miracle.  It is worth watching.

If your Congressman is Lincoln Davis, Jim Cooper, Bart Gordon, John Tanner or Steve Cohen, go HERE to send your congressman a message.
Out of State Subscribers go HERE to find your Congressman.


COMMENT:  Despite the fact that the American people do not see health care as a priority President Obama and congressional leaders are still  promoting  his health care. While most folks view the election of  Scott Brown as a clear 'message' on the Obama-Reid-Pelosi health care effort, the administration evidently has not completely received the  message.  Talk about being 'tone deaf'!  I am very happy to report that  time has proven that my friend Dr. Allen Quist, a Republican candidate for congress in Minnesota, was EXACTLY  correct when he exposed the 'marriage penalty' in the health care bill. 
Read The Marriage Penalty HERE.
In addition, the priorities for the American people are Economy, Jobs and Terrorism, not ObamaCare.

Senate Health Care Bill Gives $7 Billion to Health Centers, Could Fund Abortions
A new analysis of the Senate health care bill finds a section of the manager's amendment Senate Leader Harry Reid added to the bill that could find billions of dollars going to abortion funding. The little noticed provision could open a new door to direct taxpayer funding of abortions.During the closing stages of the Senate’s deliberations on its health care bill, HR 3590, Reid got his lengthy manager's amendment added to the measure. Read more HERE.

Top Democrat Working With White House For Abortion Funding in Health Care
Rep. Diana DeGette, the Colorado Democrat who leads the caucus of pro-abortion lawmakers, says she has been talking with the White House and others about how to resolve the abortion differences in the two bills.
The House measure contains the Stupak amendment that effectively bans government-funding of abortions under the health care plan -- consistent with current federal law under the Hyde amendment.
The Senate bill contains the Nelson-Reid deal that contains six different pro-abortion threats and forces taxpayers to pay for abortions. Read more HERE.

1. Scrap It – The most obvious option is for the Senate not to take any action on the House version of ObamaCare and the House to do the same with the Senate version of health care reform. Starting over on health care reform would consist of taking smaller bites of ObamaCare and working with Republicans to pass elements that have bipartisan support.

2. Pass It ASAP (also known as the Thelma and Louise Strategy) – The most dangerous option for liberals is to forge ahead with ObamaCare and attempt a strong-arm strategy to get it passed within the next few weeks. It is possible for the House to take up the Senate bill in an attempt to pass something this year. The House would need a simple majority and the bill would go to the President’s desk. Reconciliation could be used as a means to get a technical corrections measure to the Senate requiring only a simple majority to pass. This would effectively be the Congress doubling down on ObamaCare and ignoring the will of the American people.

3. Lame Duck Strategy – Wait until the 2010 elections are over and jam everything into a reconciliation bill. There may be so many members who have lost their jobs, they may be willing to pass something during the post election time when they have already lost their jobs. Source HERE.

Polls finds growing fears on health bill
WASHINGTON - Fears about President Barack Obama's health care overhaul increased significantly in December, according to a new poll released as the legislation's future hangs in doubt.

The monthly poll out Tuesday from the nonpartisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation measured consumers' views of how a remake would affect their own finances and access to care, among other things.

It was conducted between Nov. 28 and Dec. 20, in the run-up to the Senate's Christmas Eve passage of sweeping health care legislation that brought Congress closer than ever before to enacting a comprehensive revamp of the nation's medical system. That effort was cast into turmoil last week when a GOP victory in Massachusetts' special Senate election robbed Democrats of their filibuster-proof supermajority.
The survey shows a majority are following the health care debate in Congress — and their trepidation is evidently growing as they do.

Nonetheless, people still think that Obama should address the issue as part of dealing with the nation's economic slump, although the percentage of people who say that it's very important for Obama to do so has slipped from 56 percent in the survey conducted in September, to 49.5 percent in this month's report.

Among the poll's other findings:

COMMENT:  I guess this comes under the heading of 'when you think you have heard it all'. Not only did Reid and Pelosi ramrod the health care bills through their respective houses, they fully intend to bypass the formal conference committee  and  continue their negotiations in secret. C-Span is challenging them to permit the televising of the talks, to no avail.  Obama promised that negotiations would be done in public -- oh dear, does this mean that his political promises don't mean anything?? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! Thankfully, the preparations are underway for potential lawsuits against this unconstitutional legislation.

During the height of the health care debate in June and July, President Obama, at least twice, used the Mayo Clinic as an example to be followed – for providing some of the best and most affordable health care in the country. Those words are coming back to haunt him because the Mayo Clinic will stop accepting Medicare patients as of now at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government pays too little. 

It has become apparent that the Administration and the Democrat party do not care what the voters think or what this effort costs the party in lost seats in 2010. 

ACTION ITEM:  Please go HERE to send our two Senators and your congressman an email urging each of them to insist on open negotiations.
Out of state subscribers go HERE to find your Senators; go HERE to find your congressman.

Dems to bypass tradition on final health deal
House, Senate negotiations to complete legislation will cut out Republicans

C-SPAN Challenges Congress to Open Health Care Talks to TV Coverage

The head of C-SPAN has implored Congress to open up the last leg of health care reform negotiations to the public, as top Democrats lay plans to hash out the final product among themselves.
C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb wrote to leaders in the House and Senate Dec. 30 urging them to open "all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings," to televised coverage on his network.
The C-SPAN networks will commit the necessary resources to covering all of the sessions LIVE and in their entirety," he wrote. Read more here.

Obamacare, as critics have dubbed the president's plan to socialize health care, will be flooded with lawsuits if it ever becomes law, according to an organization that works to protect rights and liberties of Americans.

In an alert issued this week, Liberty Counsel, run by President Mathew Staver, promised his organization "is prepared to challenge the constitutionality of the bill since Congress has no authority to require every person to obtain insurance coverage and has no authority to fine employers who do not provide the coverage standards that are required in the bill."

"In addition," he warned, "the bill still requires citizens to pay a fine if they don't maintain insurance for themselves and their families."

The promise came just before the U.S. Senate approved its version of the health-care reform plan. The House has adopted a version that must be reconciled with the Senate's before moving to the president's desk. Among major sticking points are a government-run "option," as well as abortion funding, which has drawn strong opposition from the public. Read more here.

13 GOP AGs threaten health bill suit

Thirteen Republican state attorneys general are threatening to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Senate health care bill.

In a letter sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Wednesday, South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster said he had “grave concerns” about the deal Senate leaders cut with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) to secure his crucial vote for the health care package.

“The current iteration of the bill contains a provision that affords special treatment to the state of Nebraska under the federal Medicaid program,” writes McMaster. “We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed. As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision.”

“In addition to violating the most basic and universally held notions of what is fair and just, we also believe this provision of H.R. 3590 is inconsistent with protections afforded by the United States Constitution against arbitrary legislation,” writes McMaster.  Read more here.

COMMENT:  I guess this comes under the heading of 'when you think you have heard it all'. Not only did Reid and Pelosi ramrod the health care bills through their respective houses, they fully intend to bypass the formal conference committee  and  continue their negotiations in secret. C-Span is challenging them to permit the televising of the talks, to no avail.  Obama promised that negotiations would be done in public -- oh dear, does this mean that his political promises don't mean anything?? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! Thankfully, the preparations are underway for potential lawsuits against this unconstitutional legislation.

During the height of the health care debate in June and July, President Obama, at least twice, used the Mayo Clinic as an example to be followed – for providing some of the best and most affordable health care in the country. Those words are coming back to haunt him because the Mayo Clinic will stop accepting Medicare patients as of now at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government pays too little. 

It has become apparent that the Administration and the Democrat party do not care what the voters think or what this effort costs the party in lost seats in 2010. 

ACTION ITEM:  Please go HERE to send our two Senators and your congressman an email urging each of them to insist on open negotiations.
Out of state subscribers go HERE to find your Senators; go HERE to find your congressman.

Dems to bypass tradition on final health deal
House, Senate negotiations to complete legislation will cut out Republicans

C-SPAN Challenges Congress to Open Health Care Talks to TV Coverage

The head of C-SPAN has implored Congress to open up the last leg of health care reform negotiations to the public, as top Democrats lay plans to hash out the final product among themselves.
C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb wrote to leaders in the House and Senate Dec. 30 urging them to open "all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings," to televised coverage on his network.
The C-SPAN networks will commit the necessary resources to covering all of the sessions LIVE and in their entirety," he wrote. Read more here.

Obamacare, as critics have dubbed the president's plan to socialize health care, will be flooded with lawsuits if it ever becomes law, according to an organization that works to protect rights and liberties of Americans.

In an alert issued this week, Liberty Counsel, run by President Mathew Staver, promised his organization "is prepared to challenge the constitutionality of the bill since Congress has no authority to require every person to obtain insurance coverage and has no authority to fine employers who do not provide the coverage standards that are required in the bill."

"In addition," he warned, "the bill still requires citizens to pay a fine if they don't maintain insurance for themselves and their families."

The promise came just before the U.S. Senate approved its version of the health-care reform plan. The House has adopted a version that must be reconciled with the Senate's before moving to the president's desk. Among major sticking points are a government-run "option," as well as abortion funding, which has drawn strong opposition from the public. Read more here.

13 GOP AGs threaten health bill suit

Thirteen Republican state attorneys general are threatening to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Senate health care bill.

In a letter sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Wednesday, South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster said he had “grave concerns” about the deal Senate leaders cut with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) to secure his crucial vote for the health care package.

“The current iteration of the bill contains a provision that affords special treatment to the state of Nebraska under the federal Medicaid program,” writes McMaster. “We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed. As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision.”

“In addition to violating the most basic and universally held notions of what is fair and just, we also believe this provision of H.R. 3590 is inconsistent with protections afforded by the United States Constitution against arbitrary legislation,” writes McMaster.  Read more here.

COMMENT:  I had intended to let yesterday's post be the last until next week, but like the fire horse who would start to run when the alarm sounded, the truth is I must........  As I write this I am watching the final vote on this travesty, which, by the way, requires only a simple majority to pass.  Quite a sight -- you don't often see most of the senators on the floor at the same time.  Well, at 6:16 a.m. central time, the deed was done -- the final vote 60-39 strictly along party lines. (KY Republican Senator Jim Bunning was not present these votes.)

On a side note, Senate Democrats just voted 60-39 to raise the federal debt from $12.1 TRILLION to $12.4 TRILLION.

  [Links to both votes have not yet been posted, however, they were strictly along party lines.]

How's that 'hope and change' working for us????

Once again, kudos to Tennessee Senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker for their leadership and steadfast opposition to this unconstitutional legislation.

Help me out here.  If someone offers a legislator something of value to influence their vote, that is called bribery and here in Tennessee some legislators are still in jail for doing just that (remember 'Tennessee Waltz'?) However, if one Senator offers another Senator something of value to influence their vote, and 'the price is right', that is just the way business is done in DC.  What's wrong with this picture????

As I understand it the House will re-convene January 12, the Senate on January 19th. Do remember that this battle is not over.  The next step:  The House and Senate versions are VERY different and have to be reconciled. Whatever comes out of the Conference Committee, which could be ANYTHING, that product goes back to the respective bodies for an up or down vote. So...stayed tuned!!

VOTES OF INTEREST: 
Ensign Point of Order: GOP Sens. John Ensign (Nev.) and Orrin Hatch (Utah) delivered floor speeches Tuesday morning that the bill, in particular its individual mandate the nearly everyone obtain healthcare coverage, violates the Fifth Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Ensign then made a constitutional point of order on the floor, forcing a vote that will take place Wednesday."As an American, I felt the obligation to stand up for the individual freedom of every citizen to make their own decision on this issue," Ensign said on the floor. "I don't believe Congress has the legal or moral authority to force this mandate on its citizens."  This effort failed 39-60.

Corker Point of Order – Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) offered a point of order that the health bill violated provisions related to the Congressional Budget Act.  A motion to waive any violation was adopted by a vote of 55 to 44.  A simple majority was needed.

Hutchison Point of Order – Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) offered a point of order that the health bill violated the Constitution, specifically the 10th Amendment.  It was defeated by a vote of 39 to 60.

DeMint Earmark Amendment – Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) offered a motion to suspend the rules and force a vote on an amendment he wished to offer that would ban the practice of trading earmarks for votes.  A motion to table (kill) the motion to suspend was adopted by a vote of 53 to 46.

Final Cloture Motion – Senators adopted a procedural (cloture) motion to limit debate on the underlying bill which now contains the text of the Senate health reform measure, 60 to 39.  Sixty votes were needed on this motion.

List of “Sweetheart Deals”Made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to Secure 60 Votes for his Health Care Bill See the list HERE.


The Price Is Right? Payoffs for Senators Typical in Health Care Bill

 While Sen. Ben Nelson got a particularly juicy concession -- permanent and full federal aid for his state's expanded Medicaid population -- in the health care bill, support from a slew of other senators likewise came with its price.
Senator Mitch McConnell put it, “This bill is a monstrosity. This is not renaming the post office. Make no mistake — this bill will reshape our nation and our lives.”
Sen. Ben Nelson's hardly the only lawmaker extracting sweetheart deals out of the health care reform bill.
While the Nebraska Democrat got a particularly juicy concession in exchange for a "yes" vote on the 10-year, $871 billion package -- permanent and full federal aid for his state's expanded Medicaid population -- support from a slew of other senators likewise came with a price.
Western states got more money for hospitals that serve Medicare patients. Louisiana got up to $300 million in Medicaid benefits. The list goes on.
Senate Republicans lined up Saturday to decry the latest deal targeted toward Nebraska, which was decried as the "cornhusker kickback."
"Votes have been bought," Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said.  Read more here.

Reid Bill Says Future Congresses Cannot Repeal Parts of Reid Bill

Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill--and it's supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:

there's one provision that i found particularly troubling and it's under section c, titled "limitations on changes to this subsection."

and i quote -- "it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

this is not legislation. it's not law. this is a rule change. it's a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.

i'm not even sure that it's constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. i don't see why the majority party wouldn't put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates.

i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses.  See video and read more HERE.

Exclusive: ACORN Qualifies for Funding in Senate Health Care Bill

Senator Roland Burris is claiming credit for a provision in Harry Reid's "manager's amendment," unveiled Saturday morning, that could funnel money to ACORN through the health care bill.

On December 9, Burris, an Illinois Democrat, pledged that he would filibuster a health care bill without a public option. "If we have to get 60 and it comes back and it does not have a public option in it, I will not vote for it," he said. Then early last week he said he could vote for the bill if there were changes made to achieve the goals of the public option: "until this bill addresses cost, competition, and accountability in a meaningful way—it will not win [my vote]."

Asked last night before the Senate voted why he was planning to support a bill without a public option, Burris said: "We have a great bill--the best we could get. And it also covers most of our concerns: competition, cost, and accountability." But had anything specifically changed in the text of the bill that helped him change his mind? Burris told THE WEEKLY STANDARD: "It was the disparity provision that was put in, which we had something to do with, in terms of making sure that diabetes and the other diseases that are affecting minorities are really studied by HHS in all of these pilot programs." Read more here.

Senate Provision Riles the Construction Industry  

WASHINGTON -- A last-minute addition to the Senate health-care bill that requires small construction companies to offer health coverage or pay a fine touched off a battle Tuesday with some industry groups demanding its removal.
The change, offered by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D., Ore.), says construction companies should offer coverage if they have five or more employees and a payroll of $250,000 or more, or face fines of up to $750 per employee per year if the employees receive tax credits. The threshold for other types of companies is 50.
 A worker in California installs a sprinkler system in October.
Construction-related industries say it is unfair to single them out, as the recession has hit them particularly hard. Recent data show that unemployment in construction is 19.4%, nearly twice the national average of 10%.
Jerry Howard, chief executive of the National Association of Home Builders, said he had heard conversations about the proposal but was assured it wouldn't make it into the bill.
"I think that a great many Democratic senators were taken as much by surprise at the inclusion of this provision as we were," he said.
The Senate has closed the door on amendments to the bill, so if it passes, the last chance to change the construction-industry provision would be in House-Senate conference negotiations. Read more here.

CBO: Real 10-Year Cost of Senate Bill Still $2.5 Trillion

Dec. 23 (Bloomberg) -- The Congressional Budget Office challenged claims by health-care overhaul proponents that Medicare savings in Senate legislation would help finance expanded coverage and postpone the bankruptcy of the medical program for the elderly.
The nonpartisan agency said the $246 billion it projected the legislation would save Medicare can’t both finance new programs and help pay future expenses for elderly covered under the federal program.
Nor could those savings be used to extend the solvency of Medicare, set to run out of money in 2017, the budget office said in a letter to Senate Republicans.
“What we’ve seen is a colossal manipulation” by Democrats “of the accounting scores of CBO” and the independent actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, said Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, the Republican who requested the analysis from CBO. He called the letter “a potential game-changer.”
The estimated Medicare savings in the legislation overstate “the improvement in the government’s fiscal position,” the CBO said in the letter. Read more here.

Obama Lap Dogs To The Very End

COMMENT: In the US Senate on Saturday evening, 58 Democrats and two Independents voted YES on Cloture to permit the Reid (2074 pages written in secret) health care proposal to go forward.  The vote was 60-39-1. Thirty-nine Republicans (Voinovich, R-OH was absent, but was also a 'no') stood by the American people united in their opposition to the government takeover of health care. 

TN Tennessee Senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker made us proud.
(Will you click on their names and 'thank' them?)

Out-of-state subscribers can go HERE to find their Senators.





Horizontal bars indicate the two senators from a state voted differently.
This is from a great site you may want to visit and bookmark: Govtrack.us

We lost this battle, but that DOES NOT mean that we will lose the war. Reid had to make a lot of promises to round up the needed 60 votes. One of his tactics was dubbed: "Cash for Cloture."  I think it will be even more difficult for him to get the 60 votes for cloture at the end of the debate.  The Senate is scheduled take up the debate on Monday, November 30. I know, I know...the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays are approaching, but folks, we MUST stay engaged--it is our DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY. The future of our nation is at stake.

10 Things You Should Know About this Bill

The Demcare bribe list

Senator Mitch McConnell
Floor Remarks
November 21, 2009

“Mr. President, the nation is watching the Senate tonight. The American people know how important this vote is. They’ve seen the bill the Democratic Leaders want to impose on them, and they want to know where the rest of us will stand.

“This bill itself is a massive monument to bureaucracy and spending. But at its core it’s really quite simple.

“At a moment when more than one out of ten working Americans is looking for a job, at a time when the Chinese are lecturing us about our debt, this bill—this bill right here costs $2.5 trillion government doesn’t have. And cannot afford.

“It imposes punishing taxes on almost everyone. It raises health insurance premiums on the 85 percent of Americans who already have health insurance and if that were not bad enough, it slashes Medicare by half a trillion dollars. Anyone who votes aye tonight, Mr. President, is voting for all of these things.

“Now Mr. President it is a fact, a vote in favor of proceeding to this bill is a vote in favor of adding to the tax burden of the American people in the midst of double-digit unemployment. A vote in favor of proceeding to this bill is a vote to raise health insurance premiums on people who were told, they were told, that they could expect their health insurance costs to go down. A vote in favor of proceeding to this bill is a vote in favor of deep cuts to Medicare for tens of millions of seniors—seniors who depend on it totally. A vote to proceed to this bill is a vote to continue the completely out-of-control spending binge congress has been on all year. A vote in favor of this bill tells every American family sitting in a waiting room tonight, wondering when they’ll get to see a doctor or how much it’s going to cost, it’s not our concern. And worst of all, a vote in favor of this bill is a vote in favor of the spending binge that’s leading to a massive and unsustainable long-term debt that will shackle our children to a future they can’t afford.

“That’s what tonight’s vote is all about. If it wasn’t, none of us would be here on a Saturday night with the nation watching and waiting to see what we do here. They’re watching because they know that none of this—none of this is inevitable. All it takes is one vote, just one. The simple math is this, if there were one Democrat, just one of our friends on the other side of the aisle—just one who would say no tonight, none of this would happen.

“The voices of the American people would be heard. We’ve seen all the surveys. We know how they feel. If just one Democrat were to say no tonight, he’d be saying no to the premium increases, no to the tax cuts, no to the Medicare cuts. Just one on the other side of the aisle. And then we could start over with a common-sense step-by-step approach to fix the problem that got us here in the first place, and that was that health care costs too much.

“Now, Mr. President, the sad irony of this whole debate, the problem that got us here is that health care costs are out of control. And, yet, the neutral nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the score keeper around here, says that under this bill—this massive bill health care costs are actually going to go up, not down. And the American people thought that’s what this whole debate was about in the first place.

“So 2,074 pages and trillions of dollars later—2,074 pages, and trillions of dollars later, this bill doesn’t even meet the basic goal that the American people had in mind and what they thought this debate was all about to lower costs. This bill will actually make the situation worse. And now we’re about to vote on it. Now we’ve heard some senators come to the floor today and say that they oppose this bill, but they don’t want to stop the debate. They oppose the bill, but they don’t want to stop the debate.

“Mr. President, nobody is suggesting we stop the debate. No one. Not a single senator on this side of the aisle have I heard suggest that we stop the debate. But if we don’t stop this bill tonight, the only debate we’ll be having—the only debate we’ll be having is about higher premiums, not savings for the American people, higher taxes instead of lower costs, and cuts to Medicare rather than improving seniors care. That’s what the debate will be about. Now the American people, and 40 of us in this room sitting on this side of the aisle, are not asking to end the debate. That’s not what we have in mind, to end the debate. What we want to do is change the debate, not end it. Change it. Because once we get on this bill, the basic dimensions will not change.  The basic dimensions will not change.

“So I ask: why should we consider a bill we already know the American people oppose?  This is not anything anybody’s in doubt about.  The American people think, if you don’t like this bill, you’ve got an obligation to try to stop it.  And that opportunity will come at 8:00. 

“Now, I’m sure this won’t come as a surprise to any member of the Senate, but it’s going to take 60 votes to change this bill.  That means the bill is introduced, this thing we’re looking at right here, will fundamentally be the bill we’ll be asked to pass sometime in the future.  That is a fact.

“Now, after tonight’s vote we’ll all go home and face our constituents.  We’ll have to tell them how we voted on raising their premiums, raising their taxes, and cutting their Medicare.  For some of us, that’s not going to be a very easy conversation.  But it doesn’t have to be that way.

“If you really want to lower costs and premiums, then we can work together step by step and pass the commonsense reforms the American people have been asking for all along.  We can end junk lawsuits against doctors and hospitals which drive up costs.  We can encourage healthy choices like prevention and wellness programs which hold down costs.  We can lower costs by letting consumers buy coverage across state lines.  We can allow small businesses to band together to get lower insurance rates.  And, certainly, we can address the rampant – absolutely rampant – waste, fraud and abuse that drive up costs.  All of these are changes worth making.

“The American people are looking at the Senate tonight.  They’re hoping we say ‘no’ to this bill so we can start on a better plan that fixes the problem that the American people care about most, and that is cost.

“They want us to start over.

COMMENT:  The long awaited Reid Health Care bill["Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", H.R. 3590] written in secret has been introduced. It is 2074 pages long and can be found HERE.
The 36-page Congressional Budget Report can be found HERE.
BTW,  "one Senate Democratic leadership staffer acknowledged that the cost estimate did not even represent an official preliminary score from the CBO but was a representation of 'preliminary feedback' that Reid has gotten from the nonpartisan Congressional agency."

There is only one message about this bill:  Vote NO on ANY cloture motion proposed.  This is a bad bill -- there is no way make it a good bill.  It is anti-life on every level, regardless of the way abortion is or isn't addressed.  Any Senator who votes YES on cloture is voting for socialized health care.  We MUST see the BIG picture here and not get caught up in the minute details.  Putting the government in charge of one-sixth of our economy is unconstitutional, will, by force, of law require Americans to purchase a product, will raise taxes, lead to rationed health care  and bankrupt this country.

Tennessee Senators Alexander and Corker seem to understand the problems with this proposal, however, they need our encouragement to stand strong.  Go HERE to send an email; go HERE to find their phone numbers to verify their position on this bill.

Out-of-state subscribers go HERE to find your Senators, especially if you live in these states or have friends or family whose senators are: Sens. Ben Nelson on Nebraska, Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. They have not committed on the bill.

Showdown Set for Health Bill

Senate Democrats' $848 Billion Plan Promises Deficit Cut, Medicare-Tax Hike for Rich

WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid set the stage for a climactic debate in the Senate over health care by unveiling a 10-year, $848 billion bill that would extend insurance to 31 million Americans without coverage.
Mr. Reid's proposed legislation, 2,074 pages, is the Senate's answer to a bill that narrowly passed the House Nov. 7. The two bills have differences on taxes, abortion coverage and a public-insurance plan and would require considerable work to reconcile if Congress hopes to pass some form of health care overhaul -- the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's domestic agenda.
The Senate bill needs 60 votes to proceed to a floor debate, and Mr. Reid is expected to call a vote later this week, perhaps Saturday if not sooner. If the tally gets to 60 -- which was still uncertain Wednesday, though Senate Democrats showed increasing confidence -- that would open perhaps the most critical period of legislative action on American health care since Congress created Medicare in the 1960s. The debate would end with a vote on the bill by the full Senate. Nearly every Republican in Congress still opposes the overhaul effort, and there are still sharp disputes among Democrats about central provisions.
"This is yet another trillion-dollar experiment, but it is not what Americans bargained for," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.)
One swing Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, said he still has a range of concerns but suggested he might at least be willing to begin debate. "If you don't like the bill, then why would you block your own opportunity to amend it?" he said. Two other Democrats on the fence, Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, remained noncommittal Wednesday evening.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would ensure that 94% of those living in the U.S., not counting illegal immigrants, have insurance coverage. CBO previously estimated about 83% of Americans now have insurance. Read more here.

Will Americans be forced to buy health insurance?

ObamaCare has nothing going for it anymore. With unemployment touching double digits, its economic timing is bad; with polls showing tanking support in every group outside of the narrow sliver of die-hard liberal reformers, its political timing is bad; and with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services last week saying that it'll add billions to the already out-of-control deficit, its fiscal timing has gone from bad to awful.
So how are Comrades Pelosi, Reid and Obama able to march ahead with their grand designs undeterred? One reason is that Republicans have done precious little to seize the moral high ground from them. By insisting on the removal of the public option--instead of the individual mandate--as the price of doing business, Republicans have missed a major opportunity to put Democrats on the defensive and change the terms of the debate.
Republicans threw down the gauntlet on the public option--a government-funded, Medicare-style insurance plan that will compete with private insurance--in a June letter to Obama. "Washington-run programs undermine market-based competition through their ability to impose price controls and shift costs to other purchasers," they said. "The end result would be a federal government takeover of our health care system, taking decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and placing them in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy."
True. But the problem is that Democrats don't need the public option to engineer a "federal takeover of our health care system." All they need is the power to force Americans to purchase insurance. Read more here.

In Pictures: Obamacare Puts One-Fifth of U.S. On Welfare

Medicaid is a means-tested welfare program created in 1965 to provide health care for low income families. Despite the fact that it is one of the most poorly performing of all the federal welfare programs it has become the cornerstone of how health insurance is expanded under Obamacare. The Health care “reform” bills advancing in the House and Senate would expand Medicaid by making this government-run health plan available to all adults with incomes at or below 150% of the poverty line. The change would dramatically multiply eligible recipients, with 46 states seeing increases of at least 20%, including 16 posting jumps of 50% or more. Almost 21% of the entire U.S. population would be eligible for Medicaid and seven states and the District of Columbia would have eligibility rates of at least 25%.

“The legislative text and complete budget scores from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) of the health care legislation considered on the Senate floor should be made available on a website the public can access for at least 72 hours prior to the first vote to proceed to the legislation.” (Senators Blanche Lincoln, Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Joseph Lieberman, Claire McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, Jim Webb, Letter To Sen. Reid, 10/6/09)
Read letter HERE.

COMMENT: DO NOT miss a word of this analysis!  Then tighten your seat belts -- we are in for a fight in the US Senate and we will need 'all hands on deck'.  Another thing we need is to have more people go HERE to register for our email network.  The more people we can educate and engage, the more successful we can be.  Who will YOU recruit??
For highlights of bill, go HERE.

No surprise here: Democrats Won't Commit to Keeping Stupak Amendment to Stop Abortion Funding

Go HERE to see a great breakdown of the vote across the country withan interactive map.  See WHERE the 'Yes' votes were.

The Lords of Entitlement

Every medical insurance decision will be subject to rationing by politics.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi defied policy logic and public opinion late Saturday night, ramming through the House a nearly 2,000-page health-care leviathan that counts as the biggest expansion of the federal government since the New Deal. As President Obama likes to say, this was a "teachable moment" about our current government.

The lone Republican, Joseph Cao, represents a Democratic-leaning Louisiana district and extracted a promise that Mr. Obama would increase Medicaid payments to his state, and even then he only voted after Democrats had already hit 218. Let no one suggest this was the "bipartisan" health reform that Mr. Obama has long promised.

The bill is instead a breathtaking display of illiberal ambition, intended to make the middle class more dependent on government through the umbilical cord of "universal health care." It creates a vast new entitlement, financed by European levels of taxation on business and individuals. The 20% corner of Medicare open to private competition is slashed, while fiscally strapped states are saddled with new Medicaid burdens. The insurance industry will have to vet every policy with Washington, which will regulate who it must cover, what it can offer, and how much it can charge.

We have little sympathy for the insurers, or for that matter most of the other medical providers who signed on to this process only to claim now to be appalled by the result. The insurance lobby—led by Aetna CEO Ron Williams—made the Faustian bet that it could trade new regulations for more new subsidized customers who would face a tax penalty if they didn't buy their insurance. The Pelosi bill includes the regulation but guts the tax penalty because it's unpopular. Insurers will thus have to cover more sick people with fewer dollars, as healthy folk opt out of coverage until they are sick.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Mrs. Pelosi's craftiest political turn was a last-minute compromise to strip federal funds from insurance plans that cover abortions. The deal—negotiated by Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak and supported by the National Right to Life Committee—gave cover to 40-some Democrats to support the larger bill.

However, as subsidized costs soar, government will have no choice but to ration medical care, starting with the aged and grievously ill. Is pre-natal life more valuable than the elderly? We're reminded of the way pro-lifers supported Anthony Kennedy over Laurence Silberman for the Supreme Court in 1987 merely because Mr. Kennedy was a Catholic who claimed to personally oppose abortion. Mr. Stupak played the right-to-lifers like a Stradavarius.

Perhaps the most unsurprising news in this drama was the collapse of the Blue Dog "deficit hawks." Enough of them always cave in the end to give Mrs. Pelosi her way. It's nonetheless worth noting the surrender of that most vocal scourge of deficits, Tennessee's Jim Cooper, who voted aye on grounds that the bill can be improved in the Senate.

Well, Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats pulled off the deal late last night and are probably gloating big-time this morning.  The US Constitution was 'folded, spindled and mutilated' by 220 US Congressmen when they VIOLATED their oath and voted for this legislation that will mandate health care, fine those who don't buy it, cost American many jobs, will limit care, allows ACORN involvement, provides for 13 tax increases--go
HERE for more details.

The final vote was 220-215: 219 democrats and one Republican (GOP Rep. Anh (Joseph) Cao of Louisiana) voting YES; 39 Democrats and 176 Republicans voting NO.

From Michelle Malkin:  Cao is the one who took over corruptocrat Democrat William Jefferson’s seat. I had reservations about him on election night because of his soft-on-immigration views. But I gave him the benefit of the doubt. If he could stand strong on limited government and fiscal conservatism, it would be worth it.
Well, since he was elected, Cao has backed the S-CHIP expansion, the $108 billion IMF bailout, and the omni-waste spending bill. And he voted to rebuke GOP Rep. Joe Wilson for calling out President Obama on his health care lies. Read more here.

The House passed the Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962, by a vote of 220 to 215. Thanks to lobbying efforts by the Human Rights Campaign and leadership from Representative Jim McDermott, several LGBT provisions were included in the legislation. According to a statement from the Human Rights Campaign: Read more here.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) (AP photo)

COMMENT:  Well, folks, the 'health care beast' is up and moving again. Sen. Harry Reid is pushing his bill that he now says will include the 'Public Option'. However, 'Public Option' has become so tainted that Nancy Peolsi thinks it needs a new name and is suggesting 'consumer option', as if that would change the objection to the concept.  "A rose by any other name....." 

Happily Sen. Lieberman is NOT happy!  Another 'happy' is that four Democrat senators remain uncommitted on the health care bill that Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid will try to bring to the floor. Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Evan Bayh of Indiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas all declined to say on Tuesday how they would vote. Leaked memo is encouraging too.  TN Governor Bresdsen has said the cost federal health care legislation could exceed $3 billion.
Abortion funding is still in debate (see final article).

On Monday, I received a call expressing concern that the grassroots opposition to ObamaCare seems to have declined.
We CANNOT let that happen.  Our JOB is to keep the pressure on, especially now while there is so much chaos in DC.
The rallies, the Tea Parties, the Town Hall meetings were all wonderful, but it is sustained engagement that gets the job done. "Do not be weary in well doing,  for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

ACTION:  Go HERE to send you senators and congressman an email.  Go HERE to find phone numbers.
Out-of-state subscribers go HERE to find your Senators; go HERE to find your congressman.

Leaked Internal House Leadership Whip Count Shows 47 Dems at No, 8 Leaning No and 12 Undecided


Senate on Verge of Health Bill

Measure With Stiffer Penalties on Employers and Public Plan Could Come This Week

WASHINGTON -- Top Senate Democrats are close to finalizing their health bill and could unveil a measure as soon as early this week that would include stiffer penalties on employers who fail to provide health coverage.
Senate leaders plan to submit the bill to the Congressional Budget Office for a cost estimate as soon as Monday, and make the legislation public as soon as Tuesday, according to a person familiar with the negotiations.
Details of the legislation could change, but its broad outlines are becoming clear. Employers with more than 50 workers wouldn't be required to provide health insurance, but they would face fines of up to $750 per employee if even part of their work force received a government subsidy to buy health insurance, this person said. A bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee had a lower fine of up to $400 per employee.
The bill to be brought to the Senate floor would create a new public health-insurance plan, but would give states the choice of opting out of participating in it, a proposal that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada backed last week.

Harrycare Buckles to Government Option

The 'Public Plan' Delusion

WASHINGTON -- In the health care debate, the "public plan" is all things to all people. For supporters, it would discipline greedy private insurers and make health coverage affordable. For detractors, it's a way station on the path to a single-payer insurance system of government-run health care. In reality, the public plan is mostly an exercise in political avoidance: It pretends to control costs and improve access to quality care when it doesn't.
As originally conceived by Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker, the public plan would be a government-created, nonprofit insurance company providing Medicare-like coverage to the under-65 population. But unlike Medicare, benefits would be paid for mainly by premiums -- not taxes. Americans could buy coverage from the public plan or a private insurer.
Competition and choice would increase, say liberals. Facing the low-cost public plan, private insurers would hold down their own premiums, the argument goes. Health care costs for everyone would moderate. Government subsidies to provide universal coverage would be cheaper. By some estimates, Medicare's administrative costs are only 3 percent of spending compared with 13 percent or more for private insurers. A new public plan is widely presumed to enjoy an advantage in overhead. Read more here.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.)

IMPORTANT -- VIEW THIS BRIEF VIDEO: Stop Hiding Behind Hyde

Not a Death Panel, a Death Mandate

If you are someone who believes killing unborn children is a right that should be legally protected and made available to all pregnant women, and that the government should eventually take over the U.S. health care system, then you must believe that the government should get into the business of killing unborn babies.

And if you believe that, then you believe that the law must compel certain government officials to cooperate in the killing of innocents.

In a government-run or government-funded health care system that guarantees access to abortion, there must be people in government responsible for making sure unborn babies get killed.

In fact, the health care bill that the Senate Finance Committee finished amending last week specifically assigns just such a duty to the secretary of health and human services.

The Senate Finance Committee proposal would create an "exchange" in each state where people can buy health insurance from companies offering government-approved insurance plans. Americans making up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level would be eligible for a "refundable tax credit" to buy insurance -- but they could only use this credit to buy insurance from a company offering a government-approved plan in the exchange. People making 300 percent to 400 percent of poverty would also be eligible for a credit if their insurance costs more than 12 percent of their income and they purchased a government-approved plan in the exchange.

The government would not pay the credit to the individual but would pay it instead directly to the government-approved insurance plan.

"The Treasury would pay the premium credit amount to the insurance plan in which the individual is enrolled," explains the summary of the bill published by the Finance Committee. "The individual would then pay to the plan in which he or she enrolled the dollar difference between the premium credit amount and the premium charged for the plan."

Here's where the government's need to have an official who is complicit in abortions comes in.

Page 33 of the summary of the bill posted on the Senate Finance Committee's Website carries the subheading: "Rules Regarding Coverage of and Tax Credits for Specified Services." Under this subheading it says: "The Secretary would ensure that in each state exchange, at least one plan provides coverage of abortions beyond those for which Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted."

1. The Lesson of State Health-Care Reforms

The major provisions of ObamaCare already have been tried. They've led to increased costs and reduced access to care.

Like participants in a national science fair, state governments have tested variants on most of the major components of the health-care reform plans currently being considered in Congress. The results have been dramatically increased premiums in the individual market, spiraling public health-care costs, and reduced access to care. In other words: The reforms have failed.

New York is exhibit A. In 1993, the state prohibited insurers from declining to cover individuals with pre-existing health conditions ("guaranteed issue"). New York also required insurers to charge those enrolled in their plans the same premium, regardless of health status, age or sex ("community rating"). The goal was to reduce the number of uninsured by making health insurance more accessible, particularly to those who don't have employer-provided insurance.

It hasn't worked out very well, according to a Manhattan Institute study released last month by Stephen T. Parente, a professor of finance at the University of Minnesota and Tarren Bragdon, CEO of the Maine Heritage Policy Center. In 1994, there were just under 752,000 individuals enrolled in individual insurance plans, or about 4.7% of the nonelderly population. This put New York roughly in line with the rest of the U.S. Today, that percentage has dropped to just 0.2% of the state's nonelderly. In contrast, between 1994 and 2007, the total number of people insured in the individual market across the U.S. rose to 5.5% from 4.5%. Read more here

• The analysis is preliminary. As the letter points out, the analysis is still not based on legislative language. Moreover, Senate Leaders have to merge the bill with the HELP Committee bill before the bill comes to the floor. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the current analysis will be relevant to the debate much past the upcoming Finance Committee vote.
• Cost. The projected $829 billion ten year cost is no guarantee of anything. Virtually all cost estimates of government programs underestimate the true cost. Take for example Medicare. In 1965, it was projected to cost $12 billion in 1990, but its actual cost in 1990 was over $100 billion. Just recently, the SCHIP program with a fixed 10 year budget of $40 billion was reauthorized for five years at a new price tag of close to $70 billion. A long term cost projection is a missing, but important component to understanding the true cost of a proposal.Read more here.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) (AP Photo)

Leaders in the House and Senate have a plan to pass President Barack Obama’s sweeping health care plan by Thanksgiving without any significant participation by the American public. CNS News has confirmed the details in our September 22nd titled “Passing a Shell of A Bill: Congress’ Secret Plan to Ram Through Health Care Reform.” Nicholas Ballasy reports “a senior aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told CNSNews.com that it is ‘likely’ that Reid will use H.R. 1586—a bill passed by the House in March to impose a 90-percent tax on bonuses paid to employees of certain bailed-out financial institutions—as a ‘shell’ for enacting the final version of the Senate’s health care bill, which Reid is responsible for crafting.”

This story confirms the four part scenario that would railroad the bill through the Senate using a very unusual closed door procedure to craft the bill with no input from the American people.

The four stage plan to pass Obamacare has been publicly confirmed and is ready to be implemented. The following is a comprehensive update:

Step One: “The Senate Finance Committee will finish work on the marking up of Senator Max Baucus’ (D-MT) conceptual framework for legislation by this Friday.” Progress on this had been stalled and the bill was not passed by the end of last week. Foxnews.com is reporting that the Congressional Budget Office score of the bill will be released later today and a high score may further stall progress on the Committee’s Vapor Bill.  Senate Finance Committee’s progress on passing something out of committee – INCOMPLETE.

Step Two: Next, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will take the final product of the Senate Finance Committee and merge it with the product of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committee. CNSnews.com has confirmed that “the actual final text of the legislation will be determined by Reid himself, who will consolidate the legislation approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the still-unapproved legislation from the Senate Finance Committee. Reid will be able to draft and insert textual language that was not expressly approved by either committee.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will write the final version of Obamacare to be considered in the Senate with no input from the American people. This is an extremely complex procedure that will not be done in public, or in the form of a hearing, or a public conference committee, and only Senator Harry Reid, some other Senators chosen by Reid and Obama Administration officials will be allowed to read the bill before the Senate debate starts. Merger of the bills – IN PROGRESS.

Step Three: Senator Reid will then move to proceed to H.R. 1586, a bill to impose a tax on bonuses received by certain TARP recipients. A senior aid to Senate Majority Leader Ried has confirmed that he will move to proceed to Senate Calendar Number 36, H.R. 1586, or another House passed tax measure, so the Senate can avoid the Constitutional mandate that tax bills originate in the House. Proceed to tax shell of a bill – CONFIRMED.

Step Four: This scenario would most likely be implemented after the Massachusetts state legislature gives Governor Deval Patrick the power to appoint a new Senator and that Senator is seated by the Senate. The Senate swore in new Massachusetts Senator Paul Kirk on September 25th. Change Law of Massachusetts to allow for interim Senator – COMPLETE.

The final step in this plan is for the House to take up Obama care, without amending the legislation, and then sending that bill directly to the President for his signature. Matt Cover at CNSnews.com reports “House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) won’t rule out having the House vote on the Senate health-care bill without making any changes in it, which would allow the bill to go directly to President Barack Obama without having to pass through a House-Senate conference committee and another round of votes in the House and Senate–and a longer period of public scrutiny of what the text of the proposed law actually says.” This scenario is in the process of being implemented and, if successful, it will result in Obamacare being on the President’s desk in time for Thansgiving with minimal participation of the American public.

The San Francisco Examiner published an editorial today that exposed the fact that the American people can’t see the bill. “When then-Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama promised not to sign major legislation until it had been posted on the Internet for public reading at least five days, trusting voters took him at his word. Now they know better. Not only is the actual language of what is likely to become the main legislative vehicle for Obama’s signature health care reform not available on the Internet, it hasn’t been given to members of the key Senate committees or the Congressional Budget Office.” The procedure being used, in addition to the exclusion of the American people from the process, should be of grave concern to all who want to participate in democracy and have a say in Congress’ health care reforms that will touch 1/6th of the American economy.
SOURCE HERE

COMMENT:  We all know how much this administration loves 'staging' (remember how much money they spent on it during the campaign?).  Well, the meeting with the doctors to push ObamaCare was no exception.  For effect, they wanted the docs in their white coats which some did not bring.  No problem, aides were able to find a 'prop' closet somewhere and provide the desired garment. 
Now about that claim rejection rate -- many would think that those 'evil' private insurance companies would be guilty.  You may be surprised!! With private insurance if you don't like your carrier, you can make a change, if a government option is the only choice, you are stuck!
Oh, and that Senate bill -- it looks like it will only raise taxes by $29B as Bill Frist and other weigh in.
AP is reporting that opposition to ObamaCare is waning. Fall is upon us and people are back into their regular busy schedules, but we CANNOT become 'weary in well doing'.  We must continue to make those contacts -- no matter how many times you have done that before! Government run health care is NOT an option!



1.  Those White Coats In the Rose Garden
2.  GOP Doctor scoffs at O White-coat Photo stunt
3.  Guess who has the Highest Medical Claim Rejection Rate?
4.  Senate Health Bill Imposes $29B More in Taxes

1.Those White Coats In The Rose Garden

Posted 10/06/2009 07:10 PM ET

Politics: The administration stages a photo-op with handpicked doctors who support its health care reform. Fortunately, most doctors still believe that the first rule of medicine is to do no harm.

It would seem some doctors still make house calls. Some 150 of them made one at the White House Monday in an attempt to give a booster shot to the administration's chaotic and stalled health care reform drive.

Rather than a grass-roots uprising of physicians, this was a classic case of AstroTurfing.

Attendance was by invitation only, and 40 of the 150 were said to be members of Doctors for America, a reincarnation of the Doctors for Obama arm of the Obama campaign that boasts of having more than 15,000 members.

The physicians were told to bring their white lab coats with them to make sure the TV cameras to capture the proper image. Those who just showed up wearing suits or dresses were provided with lab coats hastily rustled up.

White House spokesman Reid Cherlin insisted that the doctors "were not invited based on their support for a public option." We'd like a second opinion on that. Doctors for America as an organization embraces a government-run insurance option.

"It just appears that the president of the United States, at this point, is choosing to meet only those who support his agenda," said Dr. Margaret Flowers, a Maryland pediatrician and congressional fellow for Physicians for a National Health Program, a group not invited.

Perhaps the reason is statements such as Dr. Flowers' that the "current health reform being written in Congress, particularly that being put together in the Senate Finance Committee (by Sen. Max Baucus), will not be universal and will not control health costs. ... It will not produce a health care system that uses our health care dollars wisely."

The fact is, most doctors are not happy with either the House bill or the Baucus bill. "This is war," Dr. George Watson, a Kansas physician and president-elect of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, told FoxNews.com. "This is a bureaucratic boondoggle to grab control of health care. Everything that has been proposed in the 1,018-page bill will contribute to the ruination of medicine."

Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the AAPS, told the Washington Examiner: "Promised coverage is not the same thing as care. All you're getting is a place in the waiting lines."

A survey last fall of 270,000 primary care physicians by the Physicians Foundation found that if health care reform passes, 30% expect to see fewer patients, 13% will find something that does not involve patient care and 11% plan to retire altogether.
Read more here.

By CARL CAMPANILE

Last Updated: 5:36 AM, October 7, 2009

Posted: 4:05 AM, October 7, 2009

A Republican doctor-congressman mocked President Obama yesterday -- by waving his white lab coat in the air on the House floor as he lambasted a staged White House photo op with friendly doctors.

Georgia Rep. Phil Gingrey skewered the massive photo op on Monday -- highlighted in The Post yesterday -- in which White House staffers handed out white coats to physicians to visually show MD support for Obama's controversial health-care overhaul.

Gingrey said a dozen GOP House doctors requested a meeting with Obama last month to discuss health care -- but got no response.

Tongue firmly in cheek, Gingrey said he didn't know that wearing a white coat was a requirement to meet with the president.

"If these voices are not enough to get his attention" Gingrey said, "my white coat will."

Gingrey -- who stood next to a large photo of White House aides handing out white coats to the doctors -- held his medical smock in the air on the House floor. Read more here.

3.  Deny This: Guess Who Has the Highest Medical Claim Rejection Rate?

Oh, the establishment press will just loooooove this -- not.

From BigGovernment.com (HT Mark Levin over the airwaves this evening):

Beverly Gossage, Research Fellow for Show-Me Institute and founder of HSA Benefits Consulting wondered which insurance companies rejected the most claims. She found her answer in the AMA’s own 2008 National Health Insurer Report Card (fairly large PDF).

I'm curious. Was it Aetna? Humana?

A chart showing the major carriers and how Medicare compared to them in the study follows:

Well, well.

The Medicare denial rate found in the study was, on a weighted average basis, roughly 1.7 times that of all of the private carriers combined (99,025 divided by 2,447,216 is 4.05%; 6.85% divided by 4.05% =1.69). 
Read more here

4. Senate Health Bill Imposes $29B More in Taxes

Congressional tax experts reported that the bill would impose more taxes on health care industries than originally thought -- levies that could be passed on to consumers

The new Republican support for Obama's top domestic priority came as a potential setback emerged for Senate health legislation: Congressional tax experts reported that the bill would impose $29 billion more in taxes on health care industries than originally thought -- levies that could be passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums.

That could be troublesome news for an overhaul bill facing a crucial vote in the Senate Finance Committee this week, and with Republican senators already complaining that the legislation contains too many taxes.

Schwarzenegger, who two years ago tried but failed to pass a universal health care plan in California, said in a statement that he appreciated Obama's partnership with the states and his effort to hold down costs and improve quality. He urged lawmakers from both parties to "move forward and accomplish these vital goals for the American people."

Congressional Republicans responded that they have been calling for health care improvements for months -- just not the kind that Democrats are offering. Read more here.

1. Senate Bill Sets Lines for Health Showdown
2. Seven Fatal Flaws of Baucus Bill
3. Obama targets Medicare Advantage
4. Obama: Legalize illegals to get them healthcare
5.  Read the healthcare union label

National Right to Life: The Baucus bill and abortion

News Flash: Baucus Changes Health Bill Over Dem Outcry

1. Senate Bill Sets Lines for Health Showdown

By GREG HITT, JANET ADAMY and JONATHAN WEISMAN

The major new health-care overhaul bill that landed in the Senate on Wednesday sets the lines for a fall showdown over taxes, spending and coverage for millions of uninsured Americans.

The bill, by Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee, breaks a logjam and is likely to form the core of a bill in the full Senate.

The biggest beneficiaries of the Baucus bill would be people who lack insurance now, especially older people who have trouble buying coverage on their own. The Baucus plan would require insurers to accept all comers, even those who are already sick, and establish subsidies for lower- and middle-income Americans to buy insurance.

For Americans who already have coverage through their employers or Medicare -- by far the majority -- not much would change immediately in most cases. The biggest losers would include those who have especially generous health plans, which would be subject to a new tax aimed at insurers but that could be passed onto consumers.

The bill proposes to create a network of nonprofit cooperatives to compete with private insurers, not the government-run health plan liberals want and President Barack Obama has endorsed.

The price, put at $774 billion over 10 years by the Congressional Budget Office, and new taxes on health-care companies aroused opposition. Republicans denounced the bill as a big-government boondoggle, and it drew fire from the left as well. Labor unions slammed it as too harsh on middle-income Americans, who would have to pay up to $3,800 in penalties if they failed to buy insurance.
Read more here.

2. Seven Fatal Flaws of Baucus Bill

A public plan disguised as a co-op, individual and employer mandates, massive federal regulation over insurance and benefits, and massive Medicaid expansion—the Baucus bill has them all. These are the same features plaguing the other bills in Congress and that Americans have routinely dismissed for months.

Seven Fatal Flaws

1) Middle Class Tax Hike: The Baucus bill would impose a new sales tax on drugs and medical devices and a new federal excise tax on insurance plans that exceed $8,000 for an individual and $21,000 for a family. These taxes will ultimately be passed down to the consumer, putting many middle class families on the receiving end of a tax hike

2) An Individual Mandate: In 2013, almost everyone would be required to purchase health insurance that complies with new federal standards. Those making more than three times the poverty level would face a tax penalty of $950

(maxing out at $3,800 per family) and $750 (maxing out at $1,500 per family) for those below 300 percent poverty. This penalty could apply to individuals with incomes as low as $10,831 a year.

3) No Privacy: In order to enforce the tax penalty provisions, the government would be forced to collect detailed health insurance information on Americans, reducing patient privacy and adding significant administrative costs to employers and insurers.

4) A Pay-or-Play Employer Mandate: Employers with more than 50 employees that don’t offer health coverage would have to pay a penalty for each employee who qualifies for new federal subsidizes under the bill. Inevitably, low-income workers will be hurt the most as employers would simply downsize or cut wages. Read more here.

3. Obama Targets Medicare Advantage

Seniors would lose with health 'reform,' and seniors vote.

By KARL ROVE

President Barack Obama was wise to vacation this week on Martha's Vineyard. Not because it's one of the few places in America where his health-care plan is still popular, but because by getting out of Washington he gave staff time to repair his vaunted message machine, which was starting to break down.
Two weeks ago, White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod said in a now legendary "viral" email that, "It's a myth that health insurance reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits." This was sent out the day before Mr. Obama told a Montana town hall that he'd pay for health-care reform by "eliminating . . . about $177 billion over 10 years" for "what's called Medicare Advantage." And it was two days before Mr. Obama told a Colorado town hall he'd cover "two-thirds" of the "roughly $900 billion" of his plan's cost by "eliminating waste," again citing Medicare Advantage.
Who's right? As a former senior adviser, I can tell you who: the president. What's more, according to a White House fact sheet titled "Paying for Health Care Reform," Mr. Axelrod was misleading his readers. It notes the administration would cut $622 billion from Medicare and Medicaid, with a big chunk coming from Medicare Advantage, to pay for overhauling health care. Mr. Obama heralded these cuts as "common sense" in his June 13 radio address.
Medicare Advantage was enacted in 2003 to allow seniors to use Medicare funds to buy private insurance plans that fit their needs and their budgets. They get better care and better value for their money. Read more here.

4. Obama: Legalize illegals to get them health care

Republicans see a backdoor move toward 'amnesty'
President Obama said this week that his health care plan won't cover illegal immigrants, but argued that's all the more reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually do get coverage.
He also staked out a position that anyone in the country legally should be covered - a major break with the 1996 welfare reform bill, which limited most federal public assistance programs only to citizens and longtime immigrants.
"Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken," Mr. Obama said Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. "That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else.
Mr. Obama added, "If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."
Republicans said that amounts to an amnesty, calling it a backdoor effort to make sure current illegal immigrants get health care.
"It is ironic that the president told the American people that illegal immigrants should not be covered by the health care bill, but now just days later he's talking about letting them in the back door," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.
"If the American people do not want to provide government health care for illegal immigrants, why would they support giving them citizenship, the highest honor America can bestow?" Mr. Smith said.
Read more here.

5. Read the Union Health-Care Label  

Get ready for Detroit-style labor relations in our hospitals. n the heated debates on health-care reform, not enough attention is being paid to the huge financial windfalls ObamaCare will dole out to unions—or to the provisions in the various bills in Congress that will help bring about the forced unionization of the health-care industry. 

Tucked away in thousands of pages of complex new rules, regulations and mandates are special privileges and giveaways that could have devastating consequences for the health-care sector and the American economy at large.
The Senate version opens the door to implement forced unionization schemes pursued by former Govs. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois in 2005 and Gray Davis of California in 1999. Both men repaid tremendous political debts to Andy Stern and his Service Employees International Union (SEIU) by reclassifying state-reimbursed in-home health-care (and child-care) contractors as state employees—and forcing them to pay union dues.
Following this playbook, the Senate bill creates a "personal care attendants workforce advisory panel" that will likely impose union affiliation to qualify for a newly created "community living assistance services and support (class)" reimbursement plan.
The current House version of ObamaCare (H.R. 3200) goes much further. Section 225(A) grants Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius tremendous discretionary authority to regulate health-care workers "under the public health insurance option." Monopoly bargaining and compulsory union dues may quickly become a required standard resulting in potentially hundreds of thousands of doctors and nurses across the country being forced into unions. Read more here.

by Phyllis Schlafly

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said one correct thing: health care legislation is our "opportunity, not of a lifetime, but of the century." Passage of the bill she supports would put us forever on the road to trillions of dollars in debt, bankruptcy, and European mistakes; defeat of the bill will safeguard the unique American recipe for liberty and prosperity.

• Health Care Reform

COMMENT: Now I ask you -- reading the information below, is there any doubt that the government would propose to 'counsel' seniors about 'end of life' choices.  I have heard people call in on radio shows wondering what is wrong with this and that it is being done now.  Yes, but..... What is being done now is between the doctor, the patient, and the family on an individual basis--it is NOT being required by nor paid for by the federal government that would have a vested interest in reducing the cost of health care toward the end of a person's life. There is a HUGE difference in that!!


Click here to read "Your Life, Your Choices" guide.

The guide, called 'Your Life, Your Choices,' was suspended under the Bush administration but has been revived under the current Department of Veterans Affairs. 

The guide, called "Your Life, Your Choices," was suspended under the Bush administration but has been revived under the current Department of Veterans Affairs.
Jim Towey, former director of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, told "FOX News Sunday" that the document makes injured veterans feel like a burden, encourages the severely injured to die and should be tossed out.
Asked about the document, Specter, a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, said it raises "a lot of questions" and that he would call for hearings immediately.
"I think consideration ought to be given right now to suspending it pending hearings," Specter, D-Pa., told "FOX News Sunday."
Towey first wrote about the revival of the manual last week in The Wall Street Journal.  Read more here.

The Death Book for Veterans

Ex-soldiers don't need to be told they're a burden to society.

If President Obama wants to better understand why America's discomfort with end-of-life discussions threatens to derail his health-care reform, he might begin with his own Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He will quickly discover how government bureaucrats are greasing the slippery slope that can start with cost containment but quickly become a systematic denial of care.

Last year, bureaucrats at the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, "Your Life, Your Choices." It was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA's preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use. Unfortunately, under President Obama, the VA has now resuscitated "Your Life, Your Choices."

Who is the primary author of this workbook? Dr. Robert Pearlman, chief of ethics evaluation for the center, a man who in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.

"Your Life, Your Choices" presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political "push poll." For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be "not worth living."

When the government can steer vulnerable individuals to conclude for themselves that life is not worth living, who needs a death panel?

One can only imagine a soldier surviving the war in Iraq and returning without all of his limbs only to encounter a veteran's health-care system that seems intent on his surrender.

I was not surprised to learn that the VA panel of experts that sought to update "Your Life, Your Choices" between 2007-2008 did not include any representatives of faith groups or disability rights advocates. And as you might guess, only one organization was listed in the new version as a resource on advance directives: the Hemlock Society (now euphemistically known as "Compassion and Choices").  Read more here.

COMMENT:  There is an old debate trick -- if you can't defend your position on the merits of the issue, you attack and try to demean your opponent.  The name-calling we are hearing now-- "AstroTurf" (as opposed to a genuine grassroots movement, which this is), evil-mongers, brownshirts--mean just one thing -- just one thing, we are making a difference. Check out the articles below and, by the way, don't forget -- whether or not you can see your law maker at a meeting of any sort, you can still contact him or her by email.  The liberals are now preparing 'counter attacks' to those who oppose seeing the government take over 16% of the Gross Domestic Product.

Let's continue to contribute to House website overload!!  For encouragement, just remember, no one thought the 2007 immigration bill could be stopped, but it was when THE PEOPLE continued to make their voices heard.

Out-of-state Subscribers, go HERE to find your Senator; go HERE to find your congressman.
Tennesseans:  go HERE for phone numbers; go HERE to send emails.

1.  Reid: Protesters are 'evil-mongers'
2. Grassley: Town halls could force senator to start over on healthcare
3. [Senate] Finance Committee drops end-of-life provision
4.  E-mails from public overload House Web site
5.  Town hall face-offs erode health support
6.  Health care views take sympathetic tilt

1. Reid: Protesters are 'evil-mongers'

2. Grassley: Town halls could force senators to start over o