John David Lewis
What does the bill, HR 3200, short-titled ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” actually say about major health care issues? I here pose a few questions in no particular order, citing relevant passages and offering a brief evaluation after each set of passages.
This bill is 1017 pages long. It is knee-deep in legalese and references to other federal regulations and laws. I have only touched pieces of the bill here. For instance, I have not considered the establishment of (1) “Health Choices Commissio0ner” (Section 141); (2) a “Health Insurance Exchange,” (Section 201), basically a government run insurance scheme to coordinate all insurance activity; (3) a Public Health Insurance Option (Section 221); and similar provisions.
This is the evaluation of someone who is neither a physician nor a legal professional. I am citizen, concerned about this bill’s effects on my freedom as an American. I would rather have used my time in other ways—but this is too important to ignore.
We may answer one question up front: How will the government will pay for all this? Higher taxes, more borrowing, printing money, cutting payments, or rationing services—there are no other options. We will all pay for this, enrolled in the government “option” or not.
(All bold type within the text of the bill is added for emphasis.)
1. WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE?
This is what the bill says, pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:
‘(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.
and, under “Definitions”:
‘‘(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.—The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary . . .
and:
‘‘(E) READMISSION.—The term ‘readmission’ means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.
and:
‘‘(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of— . . .
‘‘(C) the measures of readmissions . . .
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
1. This section amends the Social Security Act
2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an “applicable [medical] condition.”
3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.
4. This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.
5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.
6. There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.
7. The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.
2. Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?
What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:
‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .”
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:
1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.
2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.
3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.
3. what constitutes “acceptable” coverage?
Here is what the bill says, pages 26-30, SEC. 122, ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED:
(a) IN GENERAL.—In this division, the term ‘‘essential benefits package’’ means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security . . .
(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED.—The items and services described in this subsection are the following:
(1) Hospitalization.
(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services . . .
(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.
(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician’s or a health professional’s delivery of care . . .
(5) Prescription drugs.
(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.
(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.
(8) Preventive services . . .
(9) Maternity care.
(10) Well baby and well child care . . .
(c) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO COST-SHARING AND MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE . . .
(3) MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The cost-sharing under the essential benefits package shall be designed to provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in subparagraph (B).
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
1. The bill defines “acceptable coverage” and leaves no room for choice in this regard.
2. By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal.
4. Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?
Here is what it requires, for businesses with payrolls greater than $400,000 per year. (The bill uses “contribution” to refer to mandatory payments to the government plan.) Pages 149-150, SEC. 313, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE
(a) IN GENERAL.—A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution—
(1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, and
(2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled.
(The bill then includes a sliding scale of payments for business with less than $400,000 in annual payroll.)
The Bill also reserves, for the government, the power to determine an acceptable benefits plan: page 24, SEC. 115. ENSURING ADEQUACY OF PROVIDER NETWORKS.
5 (a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan that uses a provider network for items and services shall meet such standards respecting provider networks as the Commissioner may establish to assure the adequacy of such networks in ensuring enrollee access to such items and services and transparency in the cost-sharing differentials between in-network coverage and out-of-network coverage.
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
1. The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance.
2. Small businesses—with say 8-10 employees—will either have to provide insurance to federal standards, or pay an 8% payroll tax. Business costs for health care are higher than this, especially considering administrative costs. Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government “option.”
3. The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous.
4. With employers ending plans, millions of Americans will lose their private coverage, and fewer companies will offer it.
5. The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable.
6. With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government “option” will have no place else to go.
5. Does the plan TAX successful Americans more THAN OTHERS?
Here is what the bill says, pages 197-198, SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS
‘‘SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.
‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to—
‘‘(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,
‘‘(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and
‘‘(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:
1. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code.
2. Tax surcharges are levied on those with the highest incomes.
3. The plan manipulates the tax code to redistribute their wealth.
4. Successful business owners will bear the highest cost of this plan.
6. Does THE PLAN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO set FEES FOR SERVICES?
What it says, page 124, Sec. 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority to correct for payments that are excessive or deficient, taking into account the provisions of section 221(a) and the amounts paid for similar health care providers and services under other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.
(e) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as affecting the authority of the Secretary to establish payment rates, including payments to provide for the more efficient delivery of services, such as the initiatives provided for under section 224.
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
1. The government’s authority to set payments is basically unlimited.
2. The official will decide what constitutes “excessive,” “deficient,” and “efficient” payments and services.
7. Will THE PLAN increase the power of government officials to SCRUTINIZE our private affairs?
What it says, pages 195-196, SEC. 431. DISCLOSURES TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES.
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, upon written request from the Health Choices Commissioner or the head of a State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to—
‘‘(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer,
‘‘(ii) the filing status of such taxpayer,
‘‘(iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)),
‘‘(iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer,
‘‘(v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and
‘‘(vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.
And, page 145, section 312, EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE:
(3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:
1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code
2. The bill opens up income tax return information to federal officials.
3. Any stated “limits” to such information are circumvented by item (v), which allows federal officials to decide what information is needed.
4. Employers are required to report whatever information the government says it needs to enforce the plan.
8. Does the plan automatically enroll Americans in the GOVERNMENT plan?
What it says, page 102, Section 205, Outreach and enrollment of Exchange-eligible individuals and employers in Exchange-participating health benefits plan:
(3) AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS INTO MEDICAID.—The Commissioner shall provide for a process under which an individual who is described in section 202(d)(3) and has not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is automatically enrolled under Medicaid.
And, page 145, section 312:
(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.—The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
1. Do nothing and you are in.
2. Employers are responsible for automatically enrolling people who still work.
9. Does THE PLAN exempt federal OFFICIALS from COURT REVIEW?
What it says, page 124, Section 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:
(f) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a payment rate or methodology established under this section or under section 224.
And, page 256, SEC. 1123. PAYMENTS FOR EFFICIENT AREAS.
‘‘(C) LIMITATION ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, 1878, or otherwise, respecting—
‘‘(i) the identification of a county or other area under subparagraph (A); or
‘‘(ii) the assignment of a postal ZIP Code to a county or other area under subparagraph (B).
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
1. Sec. 1123 amends the Social Security Act, to allow the Secretary to identify areas of the country that underutilize the government’s plan “based on per capita spending.”
2. Parts of the plan are set above the review of the courts.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
The Truth About Health Insurance.
REVIEW & OUTLOOK - Wall Street Journal
Only nine states have the costly rules that Obama wants to impose nationwide.
The White House is priming the defibrillator paddles to revive ObamaCare, and its new strategy is to talk about "health-insurance reform," rather than "health-care reform." The point is to make its proposals seem less radical than they are, while portraying private insurers as villains for supposedly denying coverage to the sick.
Sounds like a good time to explain a few facts about the modern insurance market. Start with the reality that nine out of 10 people under 65 are covered by their employers, most of which cover all employees and charge everyone the same rate. President Obama's horror stories are about the individual insurance market, where some 15 million people buy coverage outside of the workplace.
Mr. Obama does have a point about insurance security. If you develop an expensive condition such as cancer or heart disease, and then get fired or divorced or your employer goes out of business—then individual insurance is going to be very expensive if it's available. But what the President and Democrats won't tell you is that these problems are the result mainly of government intervention.
Because the tax code subsidizes private insurance only when it is sponsored by an employer, the individual market is relatively small and its turnover rate is very high. Most policyholders are enrolled for fewer than 24 months as they move between jobs, making it difficult for insurers to maintain large risk pools to spread costs.
Mr. Obama wants to wave away this reality with new regulations that prohibit "discrimination against the sick"—specifically, by forcing insurers to cover anyone at any time and at nearly uniform rates. But if insurers are forced to sell coverage to everyone at any time, many people will buy insurance only when they need medical care. This raises the cost of insurance for everyone else, in particular those who are responsible enough to buy insurance before they need it; they end up paying even higher premiums. And the more expensive the insurance, the less likely people will buy it before they need it.
That's one reason that only five states—Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Vermont—have Mr. Obama's proposal for "guaranteed issue" on the books today. New Hampshire and Kentucky repealed such laws after finding that they soon had an even smaller individual insurance market as companies fled the state.
Another proposed reform known as "community rating" imposes uniform premiums regardless of health condition. This also blows up the individual insurance market, by making it far more expensive for young, healthy or low-risk consumers to join pools—if they join at all. And if the healthy don't join risk pools, then premiums go up for everyone and insurers have little choice but to reduce their risk by refusing to cover those who have a high chance of getting sick, such as people with a history of cancer. This is why 35 states today impose no limits whatsoever on how much insurers can vary premiums and six states allow wide variation among consumers.
New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have both community rating and guaranteed issue. And, no surprise, they have the three most expensive individual insurance markets among all 50 states, with premiums roughly two to three times higher than the rest of the country. In 2007, the average annual premium in New Jersey was $5,326 for singles and in New York $12,254 for a family, versus the national average of $2,613 and $5,799, respectively. ObamaCare would impose New York-type rates nationwide.
There are better ways to go. Tax credits to individuals to buy insurance would make it more affordable and thus strengthen the individual market. Other tax rule changes could also make it easier for people to join and form their own risk pools beyond their employers, such as through business federations, labor unions or, say, the Kiwanis Club. They would no longer be hostage to one job for insurance.
University of Chicago economist John Cochrane also argues that in a more rational individual insurance market, people could insure not merely against medical expenses but also against changes in health status. This kind of insurance would cover the risk of premiums rising as you get older and your health condition changes.
In turn, that would free insurers to compete for the business of all patients, including those with pre-existing conditions, because then they could charge enough to cover the costs—instead of passing them to others. As for those with rare conditions ("orphan diseases") that require a lifetime of special care and are thus uninsurable, this is where government subsidies could be both appropriate and affordable.
ObamaCare would impose on all 50 states rules that have already proven to be failures in numerous states. Because these mandates would raise the cost of insurance, ObamaCare would then turn around and subsidize individuals to buy the insurance that the politicians made more expensive. Only in government could such irrationality be sold as "reform."
Only nine states have the costly rules that Obama wants to impose nationwide.
The White House is priming the defibrillator paddles to revive ObamaCare, and its new strategy is to talk about "health-insurance reform," rather than "health-care reform." The point is to make its proposals seem less radical than they are, while portraying private insurers as villains for supposedly denying coverage to the sick.
Sounds like a good time to explain a few facts about the modern insurance market. Start with the reality that nine out of 10 people under 65 are covered by their employers, most of which cover all employees and charge everyone the same rate. President Obama's horror stories are about the individual insurance market, where some 15 million people buy coverage outside of the workplace.
Mr. Obama does have a point about insurance security. If you develop an expensive condition such as cancer or heart disease, and then get fired or divorced or your employer goes out of business—then individual insurance is going to be very expensive if it's available. But what the President and Democrats won't tell you is that these problems are the result mainly of government intervention.
Because the tax code subsidizes private insurance only when it is sponsored by an employer, the individual market is relatively small and its turnover rate is very high. Most policyholders are enrolled for fewer than 24 months as they move between jobs, making it difficult for insurers to maintain large risk pools to spread costs.
Mr. Obama wants to wave away this reality with new regulations that prohibit "discrimination against the sick"—specifically, by forcing insurers to cover anyone at any time and at nearly uniform rates. But if insurers are forced to sell coverage to everyone at any time, many people will buy insurance only when they need medical care. This raises the cost of insurance for everyone else, in particular those who are responsible enough to buy insurance before they need it; they end up paying even higher premiums. And the more expensive the insurance, the less likely people will buy it before they need it.
That's one reason that only five states—Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Vermont—have Mr. Obama's proposal for "guaranteed issue" on the books today. New Hampshire and Kentucky repealed such laws after finding that they soon had an even smaller individual insurance market as companies fled the state.
Another proposed reform known as "community rating" imposes uniform premiums regardless of health condition. This also blows up the individual insurance market, by making it far more expensive for young, healthy or low-risk consumers to join pools—if they join at all. And if the healthy don't join risk pools, then premiums go up for everyone and insurers have little choice but to reduce their risk by refusing to cover those who have a high chance of getting sick, such as people with a history of cancer. This is why 35 states today impose no limits whatsoever on how much insurers can vary premiums and six states allow wide variation among consumers.
New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have both community rating and guaranteed issue. And, no surprise, they have the three most expensive individual insurance markets among all 50 states, with premiums roughly two to three times higher than the rest of the country. In 2007, the average annual premium in New Jersey was $5,326 for singles and in New York $12,254 for a family, versus the national average of $2,613 and $5,799, respectively. ObamaCare would impose New York-type rates nationwide.
There are better ways to go. Tax credits to individuals to buy insurance would make it more affordable and thus strengthen the individual market. Other tax rule changes could also make it easier for people to join and form their own risk pools beyond their employers, such as through business federations, labor unions or, say, the Kiwanis Club. They would no longer be hostage to one job for insurance.
University of Chicago economist John Cochrane also argues that in a more rational individual insurance market, people could insure not merely against medical expenses but also against changes in health status. This kind of insurance would cover the risk of premiums rising as you get older and your health condition changes.
In turn, that would free insurers to compete for the business of all patients, including those with pre-existing conditions, because then they could charge enough to cover the costs—instead of passing them to others. As for those with rare conditions ("orphan diseases") that require a lifetime of special care and are thus uninsurable, this is where government subsidies could be both appropriate and affordable.
ObamaCare would impose on all 50 states rules that have already proven to be failures in numerous states. Because these mandates would raise the cost of insurance, ObamaCare would then turn around and subsidize individuals to buy the insurance that the politicians made more expensive. Only in government could such irrationality be sold as "reform."
Obama’s Tone-Deaf Health Campaign
The president shouldn’t worry about the protestors disrupting town hall meetings. He should worry about the Americans who have been sitting at home listening to him.
By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ
It didn’t take chaotic town-hall meetings, raging demonstrators and consequent brooding in various sectors of the media to bring home the truth that the campaign for a health-care bill is, to put it mildly, not going awfully well. It’s not hard now to envision the state of this crusade with just a month or two more of diligent management by the Obama team—think train wreck. It may one day be otherwise in the more perfect world of universal coverage, but for now disabilities like the tone deafness that afflicts this administration from the top down are uninsurable.
Consider former ABC reporter Linda Douglass—now the president’s communications director for health reform—who set about unmasking all the forces out there “always trying to scare people when you try to bring them health insurance reform.” People, she charged, are taking sentences out of context and otherwise working to present a misleading picture of the president’s proposals. One of her key solutions to this problem—her justly famed message encouraging citizens to contact the office at flag@whitehouse.gov if they got an email or other information about health reform “that seems fishy”—set off a riotous flow of online responses. (The word “fishy,” with its police detective tone, would have done the trick all by itself.)
These commentaries, packed with allusions to the secret police, the East German Stasi and Orwell, were mostly furious. Others quite simply hilarious. Ms. Douglass, who now has, in her public appearances, the air of a person consigned to service in a holy order, was not amused.
Neither has she seemed to entertain any second thoughts about the tenor of a message enlisting the public in a program reeking of a White House effort to set Americans against one another—the good Americans protecting the president’s health-care program from the bad Americans fighting it and undermining truth and goodness.
She intended no such outcome, doubtless. That this former journalist, now a communications director, failed to notice anything amiss in the details of that communiqué is a bit odd but not altogether surprising.
Crusades are busy endeavors, the enlistees in this one, like those in every undertaking of this White House, concerned with just one message. Which is that the Obama administration is in possession of vital answers to ills and inequities that have long afflicted American society (whether Americans know it or not), and that those opposed to those answers and that vision are cynics, or operatives of the powerful vested interests responsible for the plight Americans find themselves in (whether they know it or not), or political enemies bent on destroying the Obama administration.
It shouldn’t have been surprising, either, that the tone of much of the commentary on the town-hall protests was what it was. There was Mark Halperin for one, senior political editor for Time, bouncing off his chair, Sunday, in agitation over all the media coverage of this rowdiness—“a horrible breakdown of our political culture, our media culture” and so “bad for America,” as he told CNN’s Howard Kurtz. “I’m embarrassed about what’s going on, as an American.” The disruptions and coverage thereof distorted serious discussion, he explained. Mark Shields said much the same on Friday’s PBS NewsHour, if with less excitation, pointing out that these events were “not good for the democratic process,” and were a breakdown of civil debate.
There was no such hand-wringing over the decline of civil debate, during, say, election 2004, when cadres of organized demonstrators carrying swastika-adorned pictures of George W. Bush routinely swarmed about, and packed rallies. There was also that other “breakdown of our media culture,” that will dwarf all else as a cause for embarrassment, the town-hall coverage included, for the foreseeable future. That would be, of course, the undisguised worshipful reporting of the candidacy of Barack Obama.
That treatment, or rather its memory—like the adulation of his great mass of voters—has had its effect on this president, and not all to the good. The election over, the warming glow of those armies of supporters gone, his capacity to tolerate criticism and dissent from his policies grows thinner apace. His lectures, explaining his health-care proposals, and why they’ll be good for everybody, are clearly not going down well with his national audience.
This would have to do with the fact that the real Barack Obama—product of the academic left, social reformer with a program, is now before that audience, and what they hear in this lecture about one of the central concerns in their lives—his message freighted with generalities—they are not prepared to buy. They are not prepared to believe that our first most important concern now is health-care reform or all will go under.
The president has a problem. For, despite a great election victory, Mr. Obama, it becomes ever clearer, knows little about Americans. He knows the crowds—he is at home with those. He is a stranger to the country’s heart and character.
He seems unable to grasp what runs counter to its nature. That Americans don’t take well, for instance, to bullying, especially of the moralizing kind, implicit in those speeches on health care for everybody. Neither do they wish to be taken where they don’t know they want to go and being told it’s good for them.
Who would have believed that this politician celebrated, above all, for his eloquence and capacity to connect with voters would end up as president proving so profoundly tone deaf? A great many people is the answer—the same who listened to those speeches of his during the campaign, searching for their meaning.
It took this battle over health care to reveal the bloom coming off this rose, but that was coming. It began with the spectacle of the president, impelled to go abroad to apologize for his nation—repeatedly. It is not, in the end, the demonstrators in those town-hall meetings or the agitations of his political enemies that Mr. Obama should fear. It is the judgment of those Americans who have been sitting quietly in their homes, listening to him.
Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.
Silent no more! Voters unleash fury on Congress
WND Exclusive SOMETHING IN THE AIR
Constituents boo, jeer as lawmakers defend Democrat health 'reform' plan
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Sen. Specter warns angry citizen he will be forced to leave while attendee tries to physically direct him out the door
Americans are speaking up and confronting the President Obama and Democrat lawmakers with concerns about their health care "reform."
Citizens are flocking to town hall forums across the nation and letting their representatives know where they stand. Meetings are filled to capacity while thousands wait outside for their chance to be heard.
New Hampshire
At a Portsmouth, N.H., high school today, President Obama hosted a health care town hall.
An estimated 2,000 proponents and opponents of his plan gathered in the streets with signs and bullhorns, ready to greet the president's motorcade. While groups opposed to the health "reform" arrived in small groups with hand-made signs, supporters from pro-Obama organizations, such as Organizing for America and Health Care for America Now, spilled out of buses.
"Let's get this done," Obama shouted to a crowd of 1,800 inside Portsmouth High School.
Critics remained calm and polite when the president solicited responses from "skeptical" attendees, according to the Associated Press.
Pennsylvania
Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Penn., held a town hall meeting this morning in Lebanon, Pa., where constituents booed and jeered him for at least an hour. One man began shouting because he was not given an opportunity to speak. He complained that Specter, a long-time Republican who switched over to the Democratic Party this year, would not listen because he's "not a lobbyist with all kind of money to stuff in your pocket."
"One day, God's going to stand before you," he told the senator to his face. "And he's going to judge you and the rest of your damn cronies up on the Hill – and then you will get your just desserts."
Other attendees complained about Democrats plans for health "reform." CBS News reported that one woman wore a "member of the mob" T-shirt – referencing Democrat claims that insurance companies and the Republican Party had enlisted "angry mobs" to disrupt town hall meetings.
"I don't believe this is just health care. This is about the systematic dismantling of this country," a woman told Specter. "You have awakened a sleeping giant. I don't want this country turning into Russia, turning into a socialized country. What are you going to do to restore this country back to what our founders created, according to the Constitution?"
Her question prompted a standing ovation. Several members of the crowd shouted, "You work for us!" Meanwhile, a large crowd gathered outside with signs warning of socialism.
The following video shows the exchange:
Missouri
At an Aug. 6 forum sponsored by Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-Mo., many protesters were turned away at the door while SEIU members were allowed in. A video of the St. Louis, Mo., incident can be seen below:
The event resulted in six arrests. Afterward, town hall attendee Kenneth Gladney, 38, was beaten, kicked and called racist names outside the meeting. He was at the forum to sell "Don't tread on me" flags, but he said he found himself with a Service Employees International Union, or SEIU, member in his face, calling him the "N"-word and asking what he was doing peddling his message.
Gladney claims he was punched in the face and two other SEIU members jumped on top of him, yelled racial epithets and kicked and punched him. He said he sought treatment for injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face.
Also in Missouri, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., faced "shouts and jeers" even in "friendly territory" at her town hall forum on Aug. 10.
At Poplar Bluff, Mo., the report said, an audience of 500 applauded the loudest when Obama was called a socialist.
Another audience member asked, "Where's the birth certificate?" alluding to the dispute over Obama's still-unreleased eligibility documentation.
AP reported McCaskill was visibly frustrated and at one point said, "You guys are so mean."
Constituents boo, jeer as lawmakers defend Democrat health 'reform' plan
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Sen. Specter warns angry citizen he will be forced to leave while attendee tries to physically direct him out the door
Americans are speaking up and confronting the President Obama and Democrat lawmakers with concerns about their health care "reform."
Citizens are flocking to town hall forums across the nation and letting their representatives know where they stand. Meetings are filled to capacity while thousands wait outside for their chance to be heard.
New Hampshire
At a Portsmouth, N.H., high school today, President Obama hosted a health care town hall.
An estimated 2,000 proponents and opponents of his plan gathered in the streets with signs and bullhorns, ready to greet the president's motorcade. While groups opposed to the health "reform" arrived in small groups with hand-made signs, supporters from pro-Obama organizations, such as Organizing for America and Health Care for America Now, spilled out of buses.
"Let's get this done," Obama shouted to a crowd of 1,800 inside Portsmouth High School.
Critics remained calm and polite when the president solicited responses from "skeptical" attendees, according to the Associated Press.
Pennsylvania
Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Penn., held a town hall meeting this morning in Lebanon, Pa., where constituents booed and jeered him for at least an hour. One man began shouting because he was not given an opportunity to speak. He complained that Specter, a long-time Republican who switched over to the Democratic Party this year, would not listen because he's "not a lobbyist with all kind of money to stuff in your pocket."
"One day, God's going to stand before you," he told the senator to his face. "And he's going to judge you and the rest of your damn cronies up on the Hill – and then you will get your just desserts."
Other attendees complained about Democrats plans for health "reform." CBS News reported that one woman wore a "member of the mob" T-shirt – referencing Democrat claims that insurance companies and the Republican Party had enlisted "angry mobs" to disrupt town hall meetings.
"I don't believe this is just health care. This is about the systematic dismantling of this country," a woman told Specter. "You have awakened a sleeping giant. I don't want this country turning into Russia, turning into a socialized country. What are you going to do to restore this country back to what our founders created, according to the Constitution?"
Her question prompted a standing ovation. Several members of the crowd shouted, "You work for us!" Meanwhile, a large crowd gathered outside with signs warning of socialism.
The following video shows the exchange:
Missouri
At an Aug. 6 forum sponsored by Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-Mo., many protesters were turned away at the door while SEIU members were allowed in. A video of the St. Louis, Mo., incident can be seen below:
The event resulted in six arrests. Afterward, town hall attendee Kenneth Gladney, 38, was beaten, kicked and called racist names outside the meeting. He was at the forum to sell "Don't tread on me" flags, but he said he found himself with a Service Employees International Union, or SEIU, member in his face, calling him the "N"-word and asking what he was doing peddling his message.
Gladney claims he was punched in the face and two other SEIU members jumped on top of him, yelled racial epithets and kicked and punched him. He said he sought treatment for injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face.
Also in Missouri, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., faced "shouts and jeers" even in "friendly territory" at her town hall forum on Aug. 10.
At Poplar Bluff, Mo., the report said, an audience of 500 applauded the loudest when Obama was called a socialist.
Another audience member asked, "Where's the birth certificate?" alluding to the dispute over Obama's still-unreleased eligibility documentation.
AP reported McCaskill was visibly frustrated and at one point said, "You guys are so mean."
Will Americans follow orders to take flu shots?
WND LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Alarmist language sparking fears of mandatory vaccinations, quarantines
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Avian flu viruses like this one have raised worries in the past similar to those being raised by this year's swine flu
Alarmist language over possible outbreaks of swine flu as well as a series of moves by the federal government are fueling fears federal agents will soon be forcing citizens to be vaccinated – prompting one political party to launch a pre-emptive defense against any such effort.
The Constitution Party, a fast-growing alternative to the dominant Democratic and Republican parties in many elections, has come out strongly in opposition to any "mandatory injections" of "potential toxic (H1N1) 'swine flu' vaccine."
Citing the Fourth Amendment, which says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons … shall not be violated," Constitution Party National Committee Chairman Jim Clymer said the issue isn't that complex.
"It comes down to the most fundamental of all freedoms. If government can force potentially dangerous substances into our bodies what, then, can't government do to us?" he said.
Shots frighten you? Be sure to get "SCARY MEDICINE: Exposing the dark side of vaccines"
"Whether mandated by the federal government, the individual states such as Massachusetts or international organizations like the World Health Organization or the United Nations, forcing potentially dangerous chemicals on a free people is tyranny," Clymer said.
The Constitution Party cited the research of Bill Sardi, who noted the "cozy relationship" where the WHO "prematurely" declares a pandemic, forcing dozens of governments to buy flu vaccines. Then, he wrote, public health authorities invoke mandatory vaccination programs for children.
The enriched vaccine makers then "funnel profits back to the politicians."
The party noted the alarmist behavior on the part of the U.S. Departments of Health and Homeland Security, which earlier this year when "several people" were "diagnosed" with swine flu, declared a national public health emergency.
When that was declared in April, schools were closed, people quarantined and pharmaceutical companies awarded billion dollar contracts, the party explained.
Condemnation also has come from Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who cited the swine flu vaccination program in 1976. The effort killed more than two dozen people – not from the flu but from the vaccine.
Paul said he was concerned that "nearly $8 billion will be spent to address a 'potential pandemic flu' which could result in mandatory vaccinations for no discernable reason other than to enrich the pharmaceutical companies that make the vaccine."
Clymer also expressed concern about turning over decisions inside the United States to an international organization like the WHO. Adding other pieces to the puzzle, such as the Pentagon's involvement with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, just adds to his worries, he said.
According to a Fox report, the Pentagon is planning to make available military troops – if they are needed – to help FEMA respond to a flu outbreak.
The report said Defense Secretary Robert Gates is preparing to sign an order letting the military set up regional teams to help FEMA.
"Americans should be gravely concerned when all the pieces are put together," Clymer said. "We have a strain of flu which has produced mild symptoms so far, and yet it appears there's a well-orchestrated world-wide effort to put draconian measures in place for a 'pandemic.'"
Clymer also cited the WHO recommendations that would provide, essentially, for an indefinite stay in a quarantine camp for those who refuse a vaccination. He said the procedures that follow a "Level 6 Pandemic" allow international precedent to override U.S. constitutional guarantees of freedom.
The party statement said, "All liberty-loving Americans should shudder at the WHO directives which state: 'During a pandemic, it may be necessary to overrule existing legislation or (individual) human rights. Examples are the enforcement of quarantine (overruling individual freedom of movement), use of privately owned buildings for hospitals, off-license use of drugs, compulsory vaccination or implementation of emergency shifts in essential services."
No such extraordinary efforts are needed, the Constitution Party said, because according to the Centers for Disease Control, "the fear mongering regarding this flu is not warranted by forensic evidence that H1N1 is the potentially devastating plague the hyperbole purports it to be."
According to the Fox report, the bird flu frenzy during 2005 prompted the Bush administration to add influenza to the government's list of diseases for which quarantines are allowed, creating a path through which people who exhibit symptoms could be detained by government order.
Governors, however, according to a report from The Hill, are objecting to the potential involvement of the feds.
Gov. Jim Douglas, R-Vermont, head of the National Governors Association, and Vice Chairman Gov. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., wrote, "We are concerned that the legislative proposal … would invite confusion on critical command and control issues, complicate interagency planning, establish stove-piped response efforts, and interfere with governors’ constitutional responsibilities to ensure the safety and security of their citizens," Douglas and Manchin wrote to Paul Stockton, assistant secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and America's Security Affairs.
And the Fox report said even a spokesman for the Defense Department acknowledged the concerns "about civil liberties and the use of force."
Attorney Robert L. Shannon told the network the military generally isn't allowed to intervene in peoples' lives, "But it's important to remember that the president has the option and authority to use federal troops in a national emergency."
An ACLU spokesman told Fox that the idea of forced vaccinations or detentions would raise constitutional questions, and Michel Chossudovsky, writing on the Global Research website, said the implications are "far-reaching."
"The decision points toward the establishment of a police state," he said.
At Natural News.com, a warning was issued that more and more incidents are being reported involving forced vaccinations in the United States – usually through workplace or school demands.
"Attorney Alan Phillips, author of Dispelling Vaccination Myths, … got interested in the subject when he noticed the warning on a vaccination that was about to be administered to his infant child. The warning clearly stated that the odds of death from the vaccination were considerably higher than death from the diseases it was supposed to immunize," the report said.
The site even promotes a petition to halt forced vaccinations.
As the flu season approaches, a conference also has been scheduled to allow leaders of government and industry to consult on the potential problem.
The event in the past has been used to discuss various strains of bird flu, but this year is being called the International Swine Flue Conference. It's Aug. 19-20 at the Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill.
Among the topics to be considered are: "Unwillingness to follow government orders," "Control & diffuse social unrest & public disorder," "Protect police forces from falling ill & from being hurt in civil disturbances," and "Manage a surge in crime & meet routine requests at the same time."
The international flu conference, promoted by New-Fields.com, is being assembled for "top leaders and decision-makers" from a broad range of industries as well as "scientists, public health officials, law enforcers, first responders, and other experts."
The promotional brochure
lists topics:
* Mass fatality management planning
* Country report and situations update
* Surveillance and data management
* Command, control and management, and others.
Meanwhile, the Associated Press is reporting that Americans in eight cities are preparing to take a swine flu vaccine that still is in the testing stages, in manufacturers' hopes that the vaccine will be on the market soon.
Alarmist language sparking fears of mandatory vaccinations, quarantines
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Avian flu viruses like this one have raised worries in the past similar to those being raised by this year's swine flu
Alarmist language over possible outbreaks of swine flu as well as a series of moves by the federal government are fueling fears federal agents will soon be forcing citizens to be vaccinated – prompting one political party to launch a pre-emptive defense against any such effort.
The Constitution Party, a fast-growing alternative to the dominant Democratic and Republican parties in many elections, has come out strongly in opposition to any "mandatory injections" of "potential toxic (H1N1) 'swine flu' vaccine."
Citing the Fourth Amendment, which says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons … shall not be violated," Constitution Party National Committee Chairman Jim Clymer said the issue isn't that complex.
"It comes down to the most fundamental of all freedoms. If government can force potentially dangerous substances into our bodies what, then, can't government do to us?" he said.
Shots frighten you? Be sure to get "SCARY MEDICINE: Exposing the dark side of vaccines"
"Whether mandated by the federal government, the individual states such as Massachusetts or international organizations like the World Health Organization or the United Nations, forcing potentially dangerous chemicals on a free people is tyranny," Clymer said.
The Constitution Party cited the research of Bill Sardi, who noted the "cozy relationship" where the WHO "prematurely" declares a pandemic, forcing dozens of governments to buy flu vaccines. Then, he wrote, public health authorities invoke mandatory vaccination programs for children.
The enriched vaccine makers then "funnel profits back to the politicians."
The party noted the alarmist behavior on the part of the U.S. Departments of Health and Homeland Security, which earlier this year when "several people" were "diagnosed" with swine flu, declared a national public health emergency.
When that was declared in April, schools were closed, people quarantined and pharmaceutical companies awarded billion dollar contracts, the party explained.
Condemnation also has come from Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who cited the swine flu vaccination program in 1976. The effort killed more than two dozen people – not from the flu but from the vaccine.
Paul said he was concerned that "nearly $8 billion will be spent to address a 'potential pandemic flu' which could result in mandatory vaccinations for no discernable reason other than to enrich the pharmaceutical companies that make the vaccine."
Clymer also expressed concern about turning over decisions inside the United States to an international organization like the WHO. Adding other pieces to the puzzle, such as the Pentagon's involvement with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, just adds to his worries, he said.
According to a Fox report, the Pentagon is planning to make available military troops – if they are needed – to help FEMA respond to a flu outbreak.
The report said Defense Secretary Robert Gates is preparing to sign an order letting the military set up regional teams to help FEMA.
"Americans should be gravely concerned when all the pieces are put together," Clymer said. "We have a strain of flu which has produced mild symptoms so far, and yet it appears there's a well-orchestrated world-wide effort to put draconian measures in place for a 'pandemic.'"
Clymer also cited the WHO recommendations that would provide, essentially, for an indefinite stay in a quarantine camp for those who refuse a vaccination. He said the procedures that follow a "Level 6 Pandemic" allow international precedent to override U.S. constitutional guarantees of freedom.
The party statement said, "All liberty-loving Americans should shudder at the WHO directives which state: 'During a pandemic, it may be necessary to overrule existing legislation or (individual) human rights. Examples are the enforcement of quarantine (overruling individual freedom of movement), use of privately owned buildings for hospitals, off-license use of drugs, compulsory vaccination or implementation of emergency shifts in essential services."
No such extraordinary efforts are needed, the Constitution Party said, because according to the Centers for Disease Control, "the fear mongering regarding this flu is not warranted by forensic evidence that H1N1 is the potentially devastating plague the hyperbole purports it to be."
According to the Fox report, the bird flu frenzy during 2005 prompted the Bush administration to add influenza to the government's list of diseases for which quarantines are allowed, creating a path through which people who exhibit symptoms could be detained by government order.
Governors, however, according to a report from The Hill, are objecting to the potential involvement of the feds.
Gov. Jim Douglas, R-Vermont, head of the National Governors Association, and Vice Chairman Gov. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., wrote, "We are concerned that the legislative proposal … would invite confusion on critical command and control issues, complicate interagency planning, establish stove-piped response efforts, and interfere with governors’ constitutional responsibilities to ensure the safety and security of their citizens," Douglas and Manchin wrote to Paul Stockton, assistant secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and America's Security Affairs.
And the Fox report said even a spokesman for the Defense Department acknowledged the concerns "about civil liberties and the use of force."
Attorney Robert L. Shannon told the network the military generally isn't allowed to intervene in peoples' lives, "But it's important to remember that the president has the option and authority to use federal troops in a national emergency."
An ACLU spokesman told Fox that the idea of forced vaccinations or detentions would raise constitutional questions, and Michel Chossudovsky, writing on the Global Research website, said the implications are "far-reaching."
"The decision points toward the establishment of a police state," he said.
At Natural News.com, a warning was issued that more and more incidents are being reported involving forced vaccinations in the United States – usually through workplace or school demands.
"Attorney Alan Phillips, author of Dispelling Vaccination Myths, … got interested in the subject when he noticed the warning on a vaccination that was about to be administered to his infant child. The warning clearly stated that the odds of death from the vaccination were considerably higher than death from the diseases it was supposed to immunize," the report said.
The site even promotes a petition to halt forced vaccinations.
As the flu season approaches, a conference also has been scheduled to allow leaders of government and industry to consult on the potential problem.
The event in the past has been used to discuss various strains of bird flu, but this year is being called the International Swine Flue Conference. It's Aug. 19-20 at the Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill.
Among the topics to be considered are: "Unwillingness to follow government orders," "Control & diffuse social unrest & public disorder," "Protect police forces from falling ill & from being hurt in civil disturbances," and "Manage a surge in crime & meet routine requests at the same time."
The international flu conference, promoted by New-Fields.com, is being assembled for "top leaders and decision-makers" from a broad range of industries as well as "scientists, public health officials, law enforcers, first responders, and other experts."
The promotional brochure
lists topics:
* Mass fatality management planning
* Country report and situations update
* Surveillance and data management
* Command, control and management, and others.
Meanwhile, the Associated Press is reporting that Americans in eight cities are preparing to take a swine flu vaccine that still is in the testing stages, in manufacturers' hopes that the vaccine will be on the market soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)