Tag Archives: Health Care Reform

Health Care Reform Consensus: It Will Harm Millions of Small Businesses

By Daniel Downs

Small business employs more people than large corporate establishments. By comparison, small businesses employ 50.2 percent of all American workers, while large corporations employ only 49.8 percent. Depending on the statistical source used, the number of Americans employed by small businesses is between 60 to 69 million. Self employed entrepreneurs make up between 32 to 38 percent of small businesses.

Small businesses also lead the nation in creating new jobs. According to Small Business Trends, two-thirds of all new jobs are created by small business. http://smallbiztrends.com/2009/11/who-creates-the-most-jobs.html

So why do Congressional Democrats favor the interests of big business? Why does their health care reform legislation give them large deductions for self-insured health care? One answer might be elite the liberal Congressional millionaires maybe attempting to protect their investments self-insuring corporations. Another possibility maybe that big corporations have better lobbyists, but who cares?

The largest and best employers in America are overwhelmingly opposed to Congress’ health care reform legislation. They oppose it not only because it gives unfair breaks only to large corporations but also because it will raise the cost of doing business, and threatens the ability of small firms to grow their business and create new jobs.

One aspect of the legislation specifically targets the construction industry, according to the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. “The bill singles out the construction industry by not exempting businesses in this sector from the “play-or-pay” employer mandate that other firms with 50 or fewer employees are exempt from.” Interestingly, the government defines small business as firms with 500 or less employees. Consequently, many other small businesses will be adversely affected by the unfunded mandates.

About one-third of the 22 million self-employed cannot even afford health insurance. Those who do purchase health coverage have experienced double-digit premium increases every year, making it difficult to retain insurance, according to the National Association for the Self-Employed (NASE). Because the Senate tabled an amendment that would have given a 50 percent deduction to small businesses, the cost of adequate health care will continue rise if the Democrats health care bill passes.

As outlined by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), Congress’ health care reform will significantly increase the cost of health care to small businesses in the following ways:

The legislation includes a new $60 billion tax that falls almost exclusively on small business because the fee (tax) is assessed on insurance companies, which is confirmed by the Congressional Budget Office. This cost will be passed on to small business in the form of higher premiums, at least 10 percent higher. The cost of health care insurance is already 18 percent higher for small businesses than for large corporations. And, as previously stated, the new legislation exempts self-insuring large corporations from the additional costs.

Because employer mandates assess multiple penalties based on the income of full-time employees, there will be job loss, greater reliance on part-time employees, and harm to entry-level and low-wage workers.

The new reporting requirements increases administrative costs by $17 billion.

Small business with high rates of employee turnover may be put out of business because of a $600 fine for not providing all employees health insurance within 60 days.

Congress’ health care reform also limits previous cost saving options like tax-exempt Health Savings Accounts.

According to Small Business Coalition for Affordable Healthcare, a government-run health care plan cannot compete fairly with the private market and threatens to destroy the marketplace, further limiting choices.

http://www.smallbusinesshealthcarecoalition.com/Portals/2/KeyVote-Senate-%20H.R.%203590%20-%2012-2.pdf

One thing is certain; the health care reform of congressional Democrats will be neither affordable nor free-market friendly. Those are a few reasons why small businesses should petition their representatives. Small business owners can also sign the SBECs “Not On Our Backs” Small Business Health Care “Not On Our BacksPetition to voice their opposition to the proposed national health care legislation.

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.

That contained language designed to secure the 60 votes needed to overcome the filibuster against the bill and it included the Nelson-Reid deal that allows states to force taxpayers to fund abortions.

Now, in a memo the National Right to Life Committee has furnished LifeNews.com, a new analysis of the manager’s amendment reveals $7 billion in funding for Community Health Centers buried deep in Section 10503 of the 383-page amendment.

NRLC says the money could be funneled to abortion businesses to pay for abortions and will not be subject to provisions like the Hyde Amendment that stops abortion funding.

“Because this is a direct appropriation in the health care bill itself, these funds will not flow through the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services,” NRLC says. “Therefore, these funds would not be covered by the Hyde Amendment, which is a limitation provision that has been attached to the annual HHS appropriations bill in past years.”

There is also no other language anywhere in the Senate bill, despite protests from supporters of the measure to the contrary, that limits the community health center funding to non-abortion services.

National Right to Life also indicates that federal law doesn’t prohibit these federally-funded centers from doing abortions.

“Also, there is no restriction in the current laws authorizing CHCs that restricts these centers from performing abortions,” the pro-life group says.

Referring to Section 330 of the Public Health Services Act, NRLC says federal law says CHCs can only use Section 330 funds “for purposes within the scope of their grants, but one can assume that grant applications that included (for example) ‘reproductive services’ would not be deemed objectionable under the Obama Administration, and abortions could be subsumed under various other classifications as well.”

Right to Life says the concern is not a hypothetical one.

NRLC points out that the there is already an organized effort underway by the Reproductive Health Access Project to encourage Community Health Centers to perform abortions, “as an integrated part of primary health care.”

In fact, the Reproductive Health Access Project and the Abortion Access Project, two pro-abortion groups, have already produced an “administrative billing guide” to help CHCs integrate abortion into their practices within the confines of existing federal and state restrictions.

NRLC says the inclusion of the funding for CHCs with no abortion limitations presents another reason why the final health care bill must contain the Stupak amendment to truly ban abortion funding.

“The sudden appearance in the Senate health care bill of $7 billion in direct appropriations for CHCs, unconstrained by the Hyde Amendment or any other impediment to the use of the funds for direct federal funding of elective abortion, provides one more illustration of why it is critical that the final health care reform bill include the Stupak-Pitts language,” the group says.

Source Steven Ertelt, Editor, LifeNews.com, January 12, 2010.

Americans Against Congress’ Deficit Increasing Health Care Reform

In a December 22 Quinnipiac University poll, most Americans (53-36 percent) opposed the House and Senate Health Care Reform plans.

As usual, partisan politics is evident. Independent voters “mostly disapprove” 58 – 30 percent, as do Republicans 83 – 10 percent. Democrats “mostly approve” 64 – 22 percent.

Although most Americans (56-38 percent) support giving individuals the option of coverage by a government plan, they strongly oppose 72-24 percent using any public money in the health care overhaul to pay for abortions.

Americans are not happy with Pres. Obama’s performance concerning health care reform. Quinnipiac researchers found that 56-38 percent disapproved. They not only are Americans dissatisfied with Obama’s role in pushing for more universal health care, but a strong majority do not believe he will be able to keep his promise to overhaul it without increasing the federal deficit.

Slightly more Americans 56-36 percent do not want health care reform if it will increase the national debt.

Is This What Ohio Really Needs?

By Marc Kilmer, policy analyst with Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions

The Obama publicity machine was making a concerted effort to promote changes in our health care system last week. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was touting how “reform” would help individual states, like Ohio. It’s hard to see, though, how a bill that would deepen Ohio’s budget problems, subject hundreds of thousands of Ohioans to punitive fines and taxes, and deepen the deficit would help the state. I guess the beauty of this proposal is in the eye of the beholder.

There are many ways the health care legislation under consideration by Congress would raise the cost of health insurance and health care, but since these are hard to quantify let’s stick with some hard numbers to see how Ohioans would be hurt. In 2008, there were 1.1 million Ohioans without health insurance. All these individuals face fines if they do not obtain coverage. Certainly some will obtain insurance as a result of Medicaid expansion or the health insurance subsidies under this plan but there would be some who would not.

What is often overlooked in the discussion of the uninsured is that many choose to go without insurance. In 2008, there were 272,000 Ohioans who live in families making at least three times the poverty level who were uninsured. These families could presumably purchase some form of health insurance if they wanted. They chose to go without for whatever reason. Under the plans moving through Congress, they will be forced to buy a product they presumably do not want or pay high fines. Either way, this legislation will cost them.

Other Ohioans would be targeted for punitive taxes under the both the Senate and House health care bills. There are over 76,000 households that make over $200,000. Many of these would be subject to a new income surtax. The men and women in this income group are business owners and other members who are a vital part of Ohio’s economy. Their productivity will be penalized if this legislation becomes law.

Not only would many Ohioans be paying higher federal taxes, this federal legislation will also likely mean state taxes will need to be raised. Both House and Senate bills mandate that the state Medicaid program be expanded, which could mean as many as 519,000 new enrollees in this state. While the federal government would pay much of the cost for this expansion, state taxpayers would be required to fund part of it. One estimate puts that cost at $922 million over five years. With the governor and legislators struggling to find ways to balance the current state budget, it seems likely this new burden will mean even higher state taxes.

Ohioans will also be paying the price of these bills far into the future, as it is almost certain the legislation will add to the deficit. While proponents of the bills moving through Congress say they are “deficit-neutral,” independent analyses question this. The only way to assume these bills won’t add to the deficit is if the new health care spending stays within projections (something that rarely happens) and that Congress makes the promised future cuts in Medicare (something Congress has repeatedly refused to do).

Today the budget deficit stands at $1.4 trillion. Total government debt is 41% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Under President Obama’s budget proposals, it will rise to 82% of GDP by 2019. This type of deficit spending isn’t sustainable; someone, someday, will have to pay for it. If this health care bill adds to the deficit that will mean even more debt for future generations to pay off.

No one is saying that this health care bill won’t help some people. Of course some Ohioans will benefit from it. But to evaluate it fairly, both benefits and costs should be considered. The amount of money this bill will require in new and future taxes is significant. Ohioans simply can’t afford the financial burden of this so-called “reform.”

Paying for Health Care Reform

By Daniel Downs

President Obama often said people like himself could pay for health care reform. That is, high-income taxpayers can afford high tax rates to help fund universal health care.

Thomas Jefferson held a similar view. He was critical of industrious citizens getting rich while others citizens were going without. He believed the wealthy should assist the less fortunate to achieve a livable income.

The difference between the views of Obama and Jefferson may not be apparent. Nevertheless, there is a significant difference in their views. Obama adheres to a form of contemporary liberalism that has embraced the values of humanism, egalitarianism, and welfare socialism. Although Jefferson was more liberal than many of his day, he was nevertheless a rock solid natural law proponent. His values were characterized by traditional moral values, entrepreneurial capitalism, and natural rights equality. Stated more simply, Obama tends towards being a big government socialism while Jefferson was oriented toward being a limited government capitalism.

To Jefferson, the term capitalist meant entrepreneurs of small businesses including farms, repair shops, small manufacturers or craftsmen, merchants, and the like.

Today, the term capitalism certainly includes owners of small businesses; but, in practice, many modern politicians favor a big business view. Internationalists, like Obama and most federal politicians, give their allegiance to supporting national, international, and especially Wall Street business.

However, Jefferson, as did Adam Smith, opposed big business as a threat to independent “capitalists”. One reason was that they regarded big business as quasi-governmental entities, and so do many financial experts today. Like incorporated federal banks and Fannie Mae, for-profit corporations are government created entities.

The point is this: Obama, as representative of the Democratic Party, says he wants the more wealthy to pay for their welfare based benefits program for middle and lower income citizens. The obvious problem is high income citizens live off the productivity of lower income employees, taxpayers, and consumers. Early Americans like Thomas Jefferson were very critical of it. Why? As expressed by John Locke, property and productivity belonged to the worker. In other words, the means of production belonged to all Americans equal to their need and capacity.

Taxing for the limited functions of government was and is the necessary cost to secure property and life as well as to maintain the freedom to pursue as much happiness as possible. Taxing for redistribution from the haves to the have-nots was regarded as robbery just as the low wage living was regarded as slavery.

Returning health care and how to pay for it, we can restate the issue like this: the wealthy own businesses, investment and legal firms, as well as medical practices. The so-called poor do not. Therefore, the rich should pay more to provide adequate health care for the poor and middle-class.

Yet, one could argue that most businesses already pay their employees’ health care. They also pay into Medicare as well as into group health care. Employees pay a small portion of the health insurance costs. It is part of the overall wage.

So then, why should we make businesses pay their employees higher wages?

The only reason to pay employees higher wages would be for them to pay 100 percent of the cost of health care insurance. Who says it has to be a responsibility of employers and government. Are not individuals capable of purchasing their own group insurance?

The same is true of all other government-initiated social safety net programs including social security, welfare, and ESEA (now called No Child Left Behind), and S-CHIP. With the proper education, individuals and their local communities would be more capable of and efficient at providing their own social safety nets.

Without poor wage earners, all of those programs would not be needed and would be more difficult to justify.

Those social safety net programs were all good ideas, but all became means to enlarging federal powers over American lives. Except for Social Security, most of those programs never produced the results that were sold to American citizens. Corporations whose revenues are in the multi-millions and billions often get welfare subsidies. Are not the bank and manufacturer bailouts a form of welfare? After billions of taxpayer funding, the ESEA program still has not closed the educational gap between children of poor families and others; it still has resolved the huge school drop out problem; add it still has not made American children’s globally competitive in math and science. One would think that over 40 years or 3 generations Americans would have achieved this goal. Then there is S-CHIP (State Children Health Insurance Program) that never has been used strictly to help the children of poor families. Why? Because the agenda of liberal bureaucrats always has been to complete the goal of making the middle class welfare dependents or good socialists.

Democrats justify their health care reform based on the millions of Americans without adequate health care. Yet, Congressional Budget Office analysis of so-called Affordable Health Care for America Act (HR 3962) shows over 18 million will still be uninsured by 2019 under the bogus reform bill.

The fake reform will not even end the injustice perpetrated by the the government’s so-called safety net. After paying 20-40 years into the Medicare retirement age health care fund, the state often takes every possession of those who cash in on the supposed safety net. That seems more like a big brother scam and not a safety net.

Maybe, Bernie Madoff’s real crime was learning and practicing the art of his liberal big brother.

The answer to the health care problem is not the enlargement of government or government run health care. It is reforming the political economy. If as President Obama, Jim Wallis, and others claim, the rich can afford to pay more taxes for health care reform, they could afford to pay better wage rates so that all American could purchase health care they and their families want. The cure for making health care affordable (reducing costs and increasing earned income) would solve many other societal problems tied to America’s political economy.

Q&A: Abortion & the health care plan

by Michael Foust

On the same day that a leading pro-family group released a TV ad claiming the health care plan would lead to government-funded abortion, President Obama spoke to a group of mostly liberal religious groups and called such charges “fabrications.”

So, who’s right?

Following is a list of frequently asked questions, along with answers, about the controversy over abortion coverage in the health care plan:

What is President Obama’s position on the issue?

As president, Obama has not come down firmly on whether he believes the health care plan should cover elective abortions. He came closest to doing so during a July interview with CBS’ Katie Couric, saying, “I’m pro-choice, but I think we also have the tradition in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care.” He did not, though, say whether he agreed with that tradition. During the same interview he said he was “not trying to micro-manage what benefits are covered.” Pro-lifers are concerned not only because Obama, as a believer in abortion rights, is pushing health care reform, but also because as a candidate, he explicitly backed government-funded elective abortions. He told Planned Parenthood during a 2007 speech that “reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care. And so it is at the center, the heart of the [health care] plan that I propose.” He also said during the same speech, “We also will subsidize those who prefer to stay in the private insurance market, except the insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care.”

What are the concerns of pro-lifers?

Pro-lifers have three primary concerns: 1) that a public option (that is, a taxpayer-funded, government-run insurance plan) will cover elective abortions; 2) that federal subsidies to lower-income people will be allowed to be used to purchase insurance plans that cover abortions; and 3) that a health care plan will force private insurers to cover a list of “essential benefits” that includes abortions. Under all three scenarios, pro-lifers say, the number of abortions will increase.

So, under the public option in the current health care reform bill, are elective abortions covered?

There are multiple bills in the House and Senate, but under the leading House bill, H.R. 3200, elective abortions would be covered under a public plan, as both sides acknowledge. But the two sides disagree strongly over whether the public plan would use federal money to fund abortions. Before the August recess began, a House committee passed an amendment by Rep. Lois Capps, D.-Calif., who is pro-choice, that would pay for elective abortions only through the premium monies collected from enrollees. Capps and her supporters said the amendment would prevent the government from financing abortions. (The committee defeated amendments that would have explicitly prohibited elective abortion coverage.) Critics of the Capps amendment — including several conservative Democrats — called the amendment a bookkeeping sham and said common sense dictates that under a public plan, all the money is federal money. “You have a federal agency collecting these monies, getting bills from the abortionists and sending checks to the abortionists drawn on a federal account,” National Right to Life’s Douglas Johnson told Baptist Press. “… The federal government is running the whole scheme from start to finish.” Speaking to the Weekly Standard, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) called the amendment “one of the most deceptive amendments I have ever seen.” Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.) called it a “phony compromise.” Pro-life citizens who want to enroll in a public plan would have no choice but to pay the same premiums that would finance the abortions. Regarding the debate the non-partisan FactCheck.org, run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, concluded, “As for the House bill as it stands now, it’s a matter of fact that it would allow both a ‘public plan’ and newly subsidized private plans to cover all abortions.”

If, under a health care plan, lower-income families receive federal subsidies to purchase their own health care plan, then why shouldn’t they be allowed to buy a plan (public or private) covering elective abortions?

Pro-lifers argue that under the current federal employees health program — the same health insurance plans that members of Congress have – abortion coverage is prohibited. The same principle should apply to federal subsidies, they say, adding that if federal subsidies are used for health insurance plans that cover abortion, then the number of abortions would only increase and taxpayers would be footing the bill. The Capps amendment has a say in the matter by allowing federal subsidies to be used for plans that cover abortions but preventing the subsidies themselves to be used for the abortions. In other words, private insurance companies would have to segregate their internal accounts. Pro-lifers call it another bookkeeping scam. Melody Barnes, Obama’s domestic policy adviser, seemed to defend the pro-choice argument Aug. 19 during a conference call with liberal religious groups, when she answered a question about abortion and said the health care proposals are “not intended to reduce insurance coverage that Americans already have.” In other words, she seemed to be saying, if a citizen currently is paying for a private plan that covers abortion, then they should be able to do so also in a public plan or a private plan under health care reform. (Barnes formerly served on the board of two abortion rights groups, Emily’s List and Planned Parenthood.)

Is the word “abortion” even in the bills?

It’s not in most of them, but, as pro-family leader Tony Perkins said, neither are the words “tonsillectomy” or “bypass,” and such procedures would of course be covered. Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 1973 decision legalizing abortion nationwide, there has been an understanding in Congress — thanks mostly to federal court rulings — that unless a federally funded health care program explicitly excludes abortion coverage, then the controversial procedure must be covered.

How has the White House reacted to such charges?

With the exception of a couple of recent comments by Obama, the White House has said very little. The White House’s own health care fact-checking webpage, called “Reality Check,” includes videos on 13 topics, but none deal with abortion. Obama told a group of mostly liberal religious groups Aug. 19, “We’ve heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion. Not true. These are all fabrications.” The next day, he told a health care forum, “There are no plans under health reform to revoke the existing prohibition on using federal taxpayer dollars for abortions. Nobody is talking about changing that existing provision, the Hyde Amendment.” But the non-partisan FactCheck.org posted an article Aug. 21 saying that Obama “goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions ‘fabrications.'”

What’s the Hyde Amendment?

Passed first in 1976 and tweaked during the Clinton administration, the Hyde Amendment is an addition to the annual Health and Human Services Department appropriations bill that prevents Medicaid (the insurance program for low-income people) from covering abortions except in the cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. The amendment, though, has to be re-approved annually — meaning that a pro-choice Congress could reverse policy — and it also would not apply to the health care plans being considered. Funding for the health care plans would not flow through the Health and Human Services Department. The Associated Press reported Aug. 5 that “the health overhaul would create a stream of federal funding not covered by the [Hyde Amendment and other] restrictions.”

What about co-ops? Are there pro-life concerns about them?

Although none of the bills currently promotes co-ops, some legislators in Washington have floated the idea of co-ops as an acceptable alternative to a public option. In theory, a health care co-op would be owned and managed by its enrollees, and possibly even pay its own doctors and have its own health care facilities — all without federal control. If this is the case, National Right to Life’s Johnson said, “then it would be the same principle as other private insurance, which is they can do what they want, but if they want to qualify for a federal subsidy, then that plan shouldn’t cover abortions.” But if a co-op receives federal dollars and has federal control, then pro-lifers would have the same concerns that they have about the public option.

Where is public opinion on the issue?

A 2008 Zogby poll found that 69 percent of Americans support the Hyde Amendment and oppose “taxpayer funding of abortions.” On another issue, an Aug. 18 MSNBC poll showed that 50 percent believe the health care plan “likely will use taxpayer dollars to pay for women to have abortions.” Thirty-seven percent said it is unlikely.

Source: Baptist Press, August 21, 2009

Who’s telling the truth about abortion funding in Health Care Reform Bill?

Cardinal Rigali says the bill does fund abortion and that those who say otherwise are pushing an “illusion.”

President Obama says the bill does not fund abortion and that those who say otherwise are guilty of a “fabrication.”

Who is right and who is wrong?

In a August 20 report, CNCNews compares statements made by and President Obama to answer the question.

Cardinal Rigal Cardinal Rigali laid out his position in a carefully reasoned and detailed argument presented in a pastoral letter sent to the U.S. House of Representatives on August 11. Here is his explanation:

“Because some federal funds are authorized and appropriated by this legislation without passing through the Labor/HHS appropriations bill, they are not covered by the Hyde amendment and other federal provisions that have long prevented federal funding of abortion and of health benefits packages that include abortion. The committee rejected an amendment to extend this longstanding policy to the use of federal subsidies for health care premiums under this Act. Instead the committee created a legal fiction, a paper separation between federal funding and abortion: Federal funds will subsidize the public plan, as well as private health plans that include abortion on demand; but anyone who purchases these plans is required to pay a premium out of his or her own pocket (specified in the Act to be at least $1.00 a month) to cover all abortions beyond those eligible for federal funds under the current Hyde amendment. Thus some will claim that federal taxpayer funds do not support abortion under the Act.

“But this is an illusion. Funds paid into these plans are fungible, and federal taxpayer funds will subsidize the operating budget and provider networks that expand access to abortions.”

President Obama not only disagrees with Cardinal Rigali’s conclusion that the bill funds abortion because it funds abortion providers, but in his short speech to a religious audience on BlogTalkRadio yesterday he said that those who say the bill funds abortion are not telling the truth.

Here is what President Obama said:

“I know there’s been a lot of misinformation in this debate. And there’s some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness.”

“You’ve heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion. Not true. This is all–these are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation. And that is that we look out for one another. That I am my brother’s keeper and my sister’s keeper. And in the wealthiest nation on earth right now, we are neglecting to live up to that call.”

The committee referred to by Cardinal Rigali is the Energy and Commerce Committee. The Health Subcommittee amendment specifically states under 122 (4)(B): ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED.
Who’s telling the truth about abortion funding in Health Care Reform Bill?

“The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted …”

Prior to the above, the amendment says that the public health insurance option “shall provide coverage for services described in paragraph (4)(B). Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A). Sub-paragraph (4)(A) says what is not permitted in exactly the same words as in (4)(B).

So what is prohibited? Nothing. Under this amendment, the government can and will provide publicly funded abortion service coverage to all eligible citizens.

The CNSNews report further demonstrates how the New York Times spun the amendment in order to deceive the public. The NYT stated that the Health Care Reform Bill would subsidized health insurance premiums of low-income people, but would not cover abortion services.
Yet, as we saw in the above amendment, it would be covered.

According to CNSNews, low income Americans are not the only ones whose would receive federally subsidized health insurance.

“Under the terms of both the House and Senate bills, it is not only “low income people” who will qualify for federal subsidies to buy insurance, but also people making up to 400% of the poverty level ($88,000 for a family of four). The bill will guarantee all such federally subsidized insurance purchasers the ability to buy an insurance to plan that covers abortions. Therefore, federal money will pay for abortion coverage.”

“To put it more bluntly, this health care bill will take money away from hard-working, decent, pro-life taxpayers and hand it over to insurance providers that pay doctors to kill unborn babies.”

Who then is telling the truth about abortion funding under the Health Care Reform bill? Cardinal Rigali and those like him are telling America the truth. Obama and his religious supporters are not.

Total control of our lives

By Rense Johnson, Chairman of Citizens for Term Limits

The Obama Health plan isn’t just about health. It is a cover for grabbing total control of our lives.

I have heard that health care is estimated to comprise about a sixth of our economy.

HR 3200, the Obama plan, was reviewed by Liberty Council, a nationwide public interest religious civil liberties law firm.

Reading the bill (see our Links pagehttp://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/healthcare_overview_obama_072909.pdf) reveals a power grab by Obama and the government elitists attempting to gain TOTAL CONTROL over our lives.

Meaning personal, family, financial, banking, spying, abortion, speeding up end-of-life.

Rather than attempting to list the ways in which Obama would assert such total control (they are legion), I will state it in the negative: I defy anyone to find in HR 3200 one iota of freedom, one iota of daylight, for American people. There are none.

We should be grateful for the 52 so-called “blue dog” Democrats, the conservatives in the Democratic House of Representatives. It is a reflection of Democrat rot in the House that there aren’t twice that number willing to stand up for conservative values. Makes Republicans look better than they actually are, by a long shot.

The only answer? A term-limited congress, House and Senate, that will serve the people as the Founders intended and not their own selfish interests – including Obamacare and all its elitist supporters.

Rep. Austria’s Year End Legislative Summary

By Rep. Steve Austria

Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives concluded its legislative business for the year with the passage of several measures, including a funding bill for the Department of Defense and short-term extensions for the Patriot Act, as well as two major spending bills, increasing our nation’s debt limit by $290 billion to $12.39 trillion and a second stimulus bill, with new spending of over $150 billion. As I have commented on in the past, I continue to have serious concerns about the outrageous amount of government spending and will continue to oppose those irresponsible policies, which have a negative impact on our economy.

Please see below for a summary of the major policy issues considered by Congress this year.

Economy

As we began 2009 with a new administration and a new Democratic Congress, a number of spending bills were brought forward including the second half of a $700 billion “bailout” bill, a $787 billion “stimulus” or government spending bill, $410 billion omnibus bill that included over 9,000 earmarks and a $3.5 trillion fiscal year 2010 budget resolution. These massive spending bills have created historical amounts of debt and have only expanded the size and scope of government. This borrow and spend approach has hurt our economy this year and will burden future generations with an insurmountable amount of debt.

With unemployment at the highest levels in recent decades and during these difficult economic times, it is important that we devote our efforts to strategies that promote new investment opportunities, stimulate job growth and strengthen economic development. Congress must be better focused on helping small businesses create and sustain jobs to strengthen our economy. I recently appointed a new Blue Ribbon Commission to review and better understand the contracting process at Wright Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB). This commission will work on ways for our region to support WPAFB and set up a “best business model” to help companies in our region secure and create more private sector jobs that can be sustained for years to come. I look forward to the opportunities that lie ahead in the new year to strengthen economic growth and make our area more competitive nationally.

New Energy/ Climate Change Policies

Last summer, the House passed a climate change bill, establishing a national cap and trade system, which essentially amounts to a new energy tax. I have expressed serious concerns with the house-passed bill that amounts to a new $629 billion tax, negatively impacting Ohio businesses, including manufacturing and farming, resulting in more job losses. The mandates under the bill will essentially pick winners and losers among the states. States, like Ohio, that produce and use more carbon-based energy, such as coal, will be hit hardest with cap and trade, while states such as California and New Jersey will receive more favorable treatment under this bill.

Nearly 90 percent of Ohio’s energy comes from coal. Every Ohio household and business that uses electricity, heats their home with natural gas or fills their automobiles with gasoline will have an increase in energy costs and gas prices to pay for this climate change legislation. That is too much to ask of our families during these difficult economic times with unemployment at its highest level in years.

We all want clean air and increased use of renewable energy; however, we need to accomplish this goal in a responsible manner. There is a better way to achieve this goal than the bill that was passed by the House. I support an alternative plan that would promote new, clean and reliable sources of energy by having less reliance on foreign oil and begin using domestic alternative energy such as solar, wind and nuclear energy and continuing to expand new technologies such as clean coal. The alternative plan moves our nation forward using more clean energy without costing Ohio jobs and imposing a new energy tax on families and small businesses.

With the health care debate dominating the Senate’s schedule, they were unable to consider climate change legislation this year; however, they may address the issue in the new year.

Health Care Reform

In November, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3962, often referred to as Speaker Pelosi’s 2000 page health care reform bill, by a vote of 220 to 215. I voted “no” on this legislation because of its $1 trillion price tag with major cuts to the Medicare and Medicare Advantage program. Also, the likelihood that many Americans who are satisfied with their current health insurance could face significantly higher premiums as a result of the federal mandates included in this bill. This bill also imposes over $720 billion of taxes on families and small businesses.

We must enact policies that improve our health care by lowering costs, making health care coverage more affordable and accessible and protecting the doctor-patient relationship. I have consistently advocated for a common-sense approach that includes medical malpractice reform, allowing individuals to purchase health care coverage across state lines, allowing businesses and communities to pool insurance nationally, and expanding the use of health savings accounts (HSAs). This year, I introduced a bill, the Health Savings and Affordability (HSA) Act, which would empower more Americans to take ownership over their health care by expanding tax free Health Savings Accounts and making health insurance tax deductible for everyone.

We must work in a bipartisan manner to reduce costs, improve the quality of care and expand access. That is why this year I also formed a district-wide health care advisory committee made up of doctors, nurses, hospitals, small businesses, insurers and other leaders from our local community. My father was a doctor and my mother was a nurse. We must protect our doctor-patient relationship and allow you and your doctor to choose what treatment is best for you and your family, not the government.

On December 24, 2009, the Senate passed its health care reform bill, H.R. 3590, by a vote of 60 to 39. The House and Senate must now reach a compromise on the many differences between the two bills, and vote again on the new version. As the health care debate continues, I encourage you to contact your elected officials and express your views regarding this important issue.