President Obama has recently been caught in his own mis-statement.  During the long campaign for heath care reform, Obama clearly explained to the American people that health care reform (and the fees associated with it) were not taxes.  In fact, Obama told George Sephanopoulos in an interview “For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.”  When Stephanopoulos pointed to a dictionary to explain that a fee charged by the government met the definition of a tax, Obama replied by saying, “I absolutely reject that notion.”

But that was when Obama was willing to say or do anything to get the American people on his side (incidentally, the American people sided against Obamacare by significant margins… cries which fell on deaf ears in Congress).  Now that the law is in place, the administration’s tune has changed.  In a recent brief by the Justice department defending the constitutionality of the health care law, Eric Holder (Obama’s Attorney General) is arguing that the provisions requiring people to pay fines is “a valid exercise” of Congress’ taxing power.

Furthermore, in order to get enough votes to pass the bill, Obama ‘promised’… in the form of an executive order… that the health care plan would not fund abortions… an order which has now been violated by his own administration in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico.  I can hear a bunch of liberals reading this begin to whine: ”But that wasn’t really a promise… it was just an executive order that can be rescinded at any time“… REALLY.  That’s your argument?  In the real world… a piece of paper saying your legislation won’t fund abortions is a promise it won’t fund abortions… and Obama has just lied to the American people about it.

Jeffery Kuhner in the Washington Times actually makes a great point about what Obama is doing to the country with this renege on abortion funding:  bottom line… it’s an ugly thing:

Pro-lifers are now compelled to have their tax dollars used to subsidize insurance plans that allow for the murder of unborn children. This is more than state-sanctioned infanticide. It violates the conscience rights of religious citizens. Traditionalists – evangelicals, Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Orthodox Jews – have been made complicit in an abomination that goes against their deepest religious values. As the law is implemented (as in Pennsylvania) the consequences of the abortion provisions will become increasingly apparent. The result will be a cultural civil war. Pro-lifers will become deeply alienated from society; among many, a secession of the heart is taking place.

And this is from the president who was supposed to UNITE the country.  Yet another lie told us by a fawning media.

Now, what affect will these lies have on the Obama administration?  Well, if history is any indicator, I think it reasonable to say that the American people don’t like to be tricked into supporting a politician or piece of legislation.  They don’t like to feel like they were used… feel like their vote or support valued so cheaply by politicians wanting to make a quick political “buck”.  Its one thing if a politician lies about his personal life… it is quite another when he lies about his policies.  If you look at the Bush41 comparison, Obama’s re-election chances are not good.  Given his record not just on the economy… but on the basis of his own standards of performance… he deserves to loose.

via Changing Tune, Administration Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax – NYTimes.com.

..In Massachusetts v. EPA—the notorious 2007 decision allowing the EPA to treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant—the Supreme Court recognized that the state had standing to sue to protect its own coastline from the supposed ravages of excess CO2. The Supreme Court should likewise also recognize a state’s standing to sue when the federal government seeks to command its resources to serve federal objectives.  In New York v. United States (1992), the Court prevented the U.S. from forcing states to take title to nuclear waste. It can surely prevent the federal government from mandating massive expenditures of scarce state resources.

Now, do I think it is likely for the law to be declared unconstitutional if a case got to court?  Probably not… but it certainly is not an unreasonable conclusion to draw based on current law.

via ObamaCare’s Phony Medicaid ‘Deal’ – WSJ.com.

Thousands of consumers are gaming Massachusetts' 2006 health insurance law by buying insurance when they need to cover pricey medical care, such as fertility treatments and knee surgery, and then swiftly dropping coverage, a practice that insurance executives say is driving up costs for other people and small businesses.

In 2009 alone, 936 people signed up for coverage with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts for three months or less and ran up claims of more than $1,000 per month while in the plan. Their medical spending while insured was more than four times the average for consumers who buy coverage on their own and retain it in a normal fashion, according to data the state's largest private insurer provided the Globe.

The typical monthly premium for these short-term members was $400, but their average claims exceeded $2,200 per month. The previous year, the company's data show it had even more high-spending, short-term members. Over those two years, the figures suggest the price tag ran into the millions.

Other insurers could not produce such detailed information for short-term customers but said they have witnessed a similar pattern. And, they said, the phenomenon is likely to be repeated on a grander scale when the new national health care law begins requiring most people to have insurance in 2014, unless federal regulators craft regulations to avoid the pitfall.

The dirty little secret about ObamaCare is that Democrats are coercing insurance industries into compliance with the Democrat’s social agenda.  Insurance companies are becoming political tools Politicians can use to sway voters and maintain their power.  The sad reality is that this agenda is ultimately one that creates what I would call a “moral hazard” — and by this I mean a situation that encourages individuals to act irresponsibly… by incentivizing them to dump the costs of their own personal care onto the backs of their fellow citizens AFTER they are injured… instead of bearing the costs of their risk along with their fellow citizens.

How many people do you think will pay monthly insurance premiums insurance if they can enroll in any plan they want at the moment they need medical bills paid?  I wouldn’t.  To call this “insurance” is to abuse the english language.

The sad reality of ObamaCare is that fewer people will have health insurance tomorrow than do today… and everyone’s premiums will continue to go up to cover the costs imposed by those who game the system.

It’s almost as if Obama’s intent all along was to run the insurance companies out of business.

via Strange New Respect – WSJ.com.

nearly one-third of physicians responding to the survey indicated that they will want to leave medical practice after health reform is implemented.

“What many people may not realize is that health reform could impact physician supply in such a way that the quality of health care could suffer,” said Steve Marsh, managing partner at The Medicus Firm in Dallas. “The reality is that there may not be enough doctors to provide quality medical care to the millions of newly insured patients.”

It’s probably not likely that nearly half of the nation’s physicians will suddenly quit practicing at once. However, even if a much smaller percentage such as ten, 15, or 20 percent are pushed out of practice over several years at a time when the field needs to expand by over 20 percent, this would be severely detrimental to the quality of the health care system. Based on the survey results, health reform could, over time, prove to be counterproductive, in that it could decrease patients’ access to medical care while the objective is to improve access.

Furthermore, even if physicians are unable to act upon a desire to quit medicine, there could be an impact in quality of care due to a lack of morale in physicians who do continue to treat patients despite feeling significantly stressed.

via The Medicus Firm.

[Obama's] proposal seeks to create a centrally planned medical economy that will erect a gigantic government bureaucracy based on massive taxes, subsidies and regulations. Mr. Obama is willing to sacrifice his partys political fortunes in November – and even his own re-election in 2012 – because he understands one fundamental fact: Nationalized health care is the heart of cradle-to-grave statism. No country that has ever embraced socialized medicine – Canada, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy – has ever been able to regain economic freedom.

Basically, his point here is that here’s a lot more than just health care for uninsured at stake here… our freedoms, our opportunities, our free market system is at stake.

Now, the incredible Irony here is that back in 2003, when Obama was a state senator and the issue of abortion came up… Obama’s view was that:

I voted uh, uh, no, on uh,the late term abortion ban not because I don’t recognize that these are not painful issues but because I trust women to make these decisions.  To the degree to which we presume as governments to make decisions in the most intimate, uh, basic, uh, decisions of uh, a individual’s life I think we are making a mistake.

So when it comes to abortion… Government has no role to play AT ALL in the choice of women in their medical decisions.  But when it comes to every other medical decision we face… Obama wants to make sure his breaurocracy, his funding, his rules, his limitations all apply to all of our uh basic, uh, intimate, personal decisions… which is all this health care bill ever was… a piece of legislation designed to force most Americans into giving up control over their health to a health-care system run by Obama.

And you wonder why people are angry.

via KUHNER: The United Socialist States of America – Washington Times.

Can it really be worth voting for if Howard Dean and Rush Limbaugh are on the same side of the fence?

Health-care bill wouldnt bring real reform – washingtonpost.com.

But, for the sake of argument, let us concede the president’s current number of 30 million. In order to do something for the 10 percent of the population outside the current system, why is it necessary to destabilize the arrangements of the 90 percent within it?

Well, says the president, not so fast. Lots of people with insurance run into problems when they change jobs or move to another state. Okay, In that case, why not ease the obstacles to health-care portability?

Well, says the president, shuffling his cups and moving the pea under another shell, we’re spending too much on health care. By “we’re,” he means you and you and you and you and millions of other Americans making individual choices over which he casually claims collective jurisdiction.

And that, ultimately, gets closer than anything else he says to giving the game away. For most of the previous presidency, the Left accused George W. Bush of using 9/11 as a pretext to attack Iraq. Since January, his successor has used the economic slump as a pretext to “reform” health care. Most voters don’t buy it: They see it as Obama’s “war of choice,” and the more frantically he talks about it as a matter of urgency the weirder it seems. If he’s having difficulty selling it, that’s because it’s not about “health.” As I’ve written before, the appeal of this issue to him and to Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, et al., is that governmentalization of health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture — one in which elections are always fought on the Left’s issues and on the Left’s terms…

via Where Is Obama’s ‘Center’? by Mark Steyn on National Review Online.

WASHINGTON – A bipartisan House coalition voted Saturday to prohibit coverage of abortions in a new government-run health care plan that Democrats would establish to compete with private insurers.

The 240-194 vote on an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., was a blow to liberals, who would have allowed the Obama administration and its successors to decide whether abortions would be covered by the government plan. Sixty-four Democrats joined 176 Republicans in favor of the prohibition…

The amendment would bar the new government insurance plan from covering abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in danger. The Democrats’ original legislation would have allowed the government plan to cover abortions, if the Health and Human Services secretary decided it should.

But wait just a minute… didn’t Obama just recently promise the American people that (and I quote):

[N]o federal dollars will be used to fund abortions?”

So… maybe I’m just a bit confused… if there were no provisions providing tax dollars to be spent on abortion, why did Congress just have to vote on an amendment to REMOVE said provision?

These are the questions that make you really think…

via House votes strict ban on abortion subsidies

Mr. Obama wants to provide insurance for an additional 30 million Americans, but recent experience in Massachusetts shows that universal coverage will result in an even greater physician shortage and longer waiting times for patients.

Because Massachusetts’ Commonwealth system served as the model for the universal coverage Mr. Obama wants to implement nationwide, a few results of its health-care experiment are worth noting. A 2008 Physician Workforce Study by the Massachusetts Medical Society found that the percentage of residents having difficulty getting care rose to 24% from 16% between 2007 and 2008. Since 2006 when the Commonwealth system was implemented, internal medicine and family practice went from having labor market conditions that were considered “soft” or unstressed to being the only two specialties with labor market conditions classified as “severe” or experiencing the highest possible degree of stress.

This is stunning to say the least:  AFTER the government stepped in to the health care arena — promising that MORE PEOPLE would get better care, the percentage of residents having difficulty getting care rose 8%.  In other words, when markets were able to act more efficiently, a higher number of people were able to access more care.  Under the new government-mandated Massachusetts program went into effect, more people had trouble accessing care than before.

This raises the obvious question:  what kind of health care system do you want, a private system that restricts access based on cost (but treats more people)… or a public system that doesn’t “limit” care, but ultimately treats FEWER people.

I’d rather see the most people get the most care… but that’s just me.

via Obama’s Doctor Shortage – WSJ.com.

For everybody who thinks that universal medical care is some sort of ‘right’ we are all entitled to have our fellow citizens pay for… maybe you should take alook at this table… think about its implications… and then ask yourself again why you think MORE PEOPLE will be better off under a government system.

Turns out our free-market system ensures we have 3X the number of CT scanners, 5X the number of MRI machines… and have much lower fatality rates for heart attacks, and certain forms of cancer than our government-controlled health system competitors (i.e. Canada and Great Britian)

[HT] Government Medicine Kills by Deroy Murdock on National Review Online.

Or, for those of you who don’t think that “conservative blogs” are even less legitimate than say, one of John Edwards lovechildren, then I have the link for you:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649#_edn12