The idea that America needs transforming, and that he is the man to do it, did not start with Barack Obama. The grandiosely named Center for Health Transformation (CHT) was started by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

In 2003, Newt Gingrich wrote Saving Lives & Saving Money: Transforming Health and Healthcare. It does offer some “free market” solutions. But doctors are apparently free only as long as they do what Newt thinks they should.

The backup plan is: “When all else fails, mandate.” Specifically, physicians who “insist on doing it the old way…should simply not be allowed to practice medicine.” As far as I know, even Obama doesn’t go this far.

In developing his plans and strategies, the CHT boasts a lot of allies: along with top leaders in federal and state governments, it includes “key corporations, top hospitals, disease advocacy groups, professional and industry associations, and leading research institutions.” Many if not all of them probably endorsed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ObamaCare”).

Newt has embraced the key fallacy that “the number of uninsured in America is a threat to our civilization.” He thinks that medical errors are “morally unacceptable,” and that they could somehow be prevented by forcing everybody to use the health information technology that his supporters, just coincidentally, happen to sell. He speaks favorably of outgoing CMS director Donald Berwick, an avowed admirer of the British National Health Service’s rationing system. He is convinced that “disease management programs” can” dramatically improve outcomes.”

(more…)

The leading breast cancer charity organization has announced that it is ending its relationship with Planned Parenthood because the latter is under investigation of whether it has used public monies to fund abortions. The Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure has provided grants to Planned Parenthood for breast prevention screenings and breast education at their centers throughout the country.

Leslie Aun, a Komen spokesperson, told the Associated Press that her foundation’s break with Planned Parenthood comes as a result of a policy change which blocks grant money to organizations which are under investigation by local, state, or federal authorities.

According to Planned Parenthood, funding from the Komen Foundation has provided 170,000 breast screenings over the past five years. The family planning organization has announced a recent “emergency fund” of about $250,000, from the Amy and Lee Fikes’ Foundation, that will compensate for the funds lost from the Komen Foundation.

In response to the drop in funding from the Komen Foundation, Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, openly criticized the anti-abortion sentiments that led to the end of the relationship between the organizations. Ms. RIchards said in a press release, “We are alarmed and saddened that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation appears to have succumbed to political pressure. Our greatest desire is for Komen to reconsider this policy and recommit to the partnership on which so many women count.”

(more…)

In response to an order, by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, that all healthcare insurance plans in the United States must cover sterilizations, contraceptives, and FDA-approved abortion-inducing drugs, without fees or copays, the head of the Roman Catholic diocese of Pittsburgh has said, “The Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, ‘To Hell with you!’”

Bishop David A. Zubik said, “Let’s be blunt. This whole process of mandating these guidelines undermines the democratic process itself.”

Though the regulation announced by Secretary Sebelius includes an exemption for “religious employers,” those employers wishing to qualify for this exemption must primarily: serve members of its own faith, employ members of its own faith, and focus on the teaching of the doctrines of that faith. As a result of this rule, Catholic hospitals, universities, and charitable organizations would not qualify for the exemption.

In addition, there is no exemption for individual citizens or private businesses. Thus, any individual who is a pro-life small business owner and employer is not exempt from the law. He or she must provide health insurance that offers full coverage for sterilization, contraception, and abortion-inducing drugs.

(more…)

House Republicans will be prepared with a plan to replace ObamaCare with free-market alternatives after the Supreme Court delivers its decision in June. The High Court is planning to hold oral arguments on the healthcare law in March.

Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pennsylvania), who serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and chairs its Subcommittee on Health, said that Republicans will be ready for the open window provided by a Supreme Court ruling regardless of the nature of that decision.

Congressman Pitts said he expects the High Court to strike down the individual mandate, but not the entire law. He added that it is also possible the Court could say that federal tax law precludes its decision on the mandate’s constitutionality until after 2015. “We’ll have a window of opportunity with everyone looking to explain that the Affordable Care Act is not fully implemented yet…We’ll use that opportunity and that window to discuss the full ramifications of the Affordable Care Act,” Rep. Pitts said.

Rep. Pitts, who has a Heritage Action for America score of 79%, indicated that the Republican plan will include long-standing GOP priorities, such as limits on medical malpractice suits, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines, and expansion of the use of health savings accounts. In addition, his committee plans the following:

(more…)

Following Thursday night’s Republican debate-turned-brawl in Florida, Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren read a tweet from President Obama’s right-hand-man, David Axelrod:

Daniel Horowitz, in RedState, has gotten this issue exactly right.

About Rick Santorum’s intense confrontation of Mitt Romney on the subject of Romneycare in Massachusetts, Horowitz says:

He [Romney] has the nerve to feign outrage over Obamacare, even while he touts Romneycare – a carbon copy of Obamacare – as a virtuous success, supported by 90% of Massachusetts residents.  Santorum did his homework, and called him out on the hypocrisy.  Romney was never able to answer why the same market intervention and distortions – mandates, subsidies, and Medicaid – which form the bedrock of Obamacare , supposedly worked so well in Massachusetts.  The reason he couldn’t answer the question is because Romneycare was a complete failure.  It is the canary in the coal mine for Obamacare.

Gov. Romney’s statement that most Massachusetts citizens are happy with Romneycare is ludicrous. In 2010, Massachusetts and Vermont delivered the highest average individual market health insurance premiums–over $400 per person per month, approximately twice the national average. Those in the state who cannot afford these outrageous costs are forced into Medicaid which, in turn, encourages people not to work so that they can meet the eligibility requirements for the federally funded plan. (more…)

Democrats already know one issue upon which they have potential GOP nominee, Mitt Romney at a severe disadvantage, as Paul Begala points out: RomneyCare versus ObamaCare.

After 19 debates Mitt still doesn’t have a straight answer. Rick Santorum skillfully dissected Romney on the topic. If Romney is the GOP nominee, you can be sure Barack Obama will do the same.

Appearing to have been stuck in, you’re angry mode, a tactic Romney is deploying to target Newt Gingrich, it was all he seemed to have as a fall back when very effectively pressed on the subject by Rick Santorum in last night’s debate.

“We cannot give the issue of healthcare away in this election,” Santorum declared, striking a resonance with conservatives everywhere.

Based upon various Twitter accounts, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh picked up on the topic this morning, stressing the importance of the exchange between Santorum and Romney. Liberal blogs and outlets such as Talking Points Memo and the Huffington Post are picking up on it with video, as is The Hill, among others.

(more…)

Earlier today the Mitt Romney campaign released a video of the 1994 debate he had with Ted Kennedy where a younger Mitt Romney argues against a government takeover of health care.

But in April 12, 2006 at a Faneuil Hall singing ceremony, Mitt Romney actually saluted Ted Kennedy, the very man he debated at Faneuil Hall in 1994 as a “parent” of healthcare. Then Romney celebrated Kennedy’s ability to get a federal monies for their signature health care bill. Now Romney makes a states’ rights appeal and says that the Massachusetts plan was for Massachusetts and didn’t involve the other states.

According to NBC News’ Michael Isikoff, White House visitors logs reveal that Romney’s health care advisers and experts repeatedly met with senior Obama administration officials in 2009, while Obama’s health care plan was being drafted.  Indeed when Mitt Romney argued that Barack Obama ought to have called him and asked him what worked and what didn’t, Romney neglected to mention that three of his own advisers decamped to Washington so Obama had little need to phone him.

(more…)

I’ve already bragged that the Cato Institute is America’s best think tank, highlighting the fact that we took the lead in battling against Obama’s faux stimulus at a time when many were dispirited and reluctant to fight big government.

I’m biased, of course, so I’ll understand if you discount what I say. But I hope you’ll agree that my colleagues have put together an excellent video response to the President’s state-of-the-union speech.

As part of my contribution to the video, beginning around 6:35, I debunk the President’s class-warfare tax agenda by citing IRS data from the 1980s to explain that higher tax rates don’t necessarily mean higher tax revenue.

After a night’s sleep, here are a few additional observations on the President’s remarks.

• I was disappointed, but not surprised, that he repeated the economically foolish assertion that Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.
• I also was not surprised that he didn’t say much about jobs and the economy. These four charts show he doesn’t have much to brag about.
• It was also noteworthy that he didn’t spend much time talking about Obamacare, which suggests that White House pollsters understand that government-run healthcare isn’t very popular.
• It was equally revealing that he didn’t spend much time on the so-called income inequality issue. Redistribution was implicit in what he said, to be sure, but the Occupy-Wall-Street crowd is probably disappointed that he didn’t explicitly embrace their agenda. More evidence that the pollsters played a big role in this speech.
• I’m definitely not surprised that he talked about eliminating Osama bin Laden. Kudos to the Commander-in-Chief.
• I was amazed that he had the gall to say “no bailouts,” particularly given his support for TARP, the Dodd-Frank bailout bill, and the giveaway to GM and the auto unions. And if the GM bailout is supposed to be a success, I’d hate to see his definition of failure.
• And I was stunned that he could talk about the housing meltdown and mortgage crisis without mentioning the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac. Sort of like analyzing World War II and pretending Germany and Japan didn’t exist.

Since most of the previous observation are critical, I want to stress that I’m not being partisan. I also was disappointed in the Republican response. Was the GOP smart to showcase a governor who was part of the big-spending Bush Administration? Especially one who has said nice things about the value-added tax?

(more…)

The Supreme Court is back in session with major decisions coming on the legality of Obamacare, Arizona’s anti-immigration law, and the right of property owners to due process.

How’s the court expected rule in these cases and what are the likely implications of its decisions?

(more…)

A lot of attention has been drawn to the official White memo authored by economist Larry Summers that shows the Obama administration purposely hid costs of Obama’s healthcare legislation and his overall agenda. Ryan Lizza at The New Yorker released the full document.

Many have waded through the document and came to an obvious conclusion.

James Pethokoukis | The Enterprise Blog (see the analysis for each point).

1. The stimulus was about implementing the Obama agenda.

2. Team Obama knows these deficits are dangerous (although it has offered no long-term plan to deal with them).

3. Obamanomics was pricier than advertised.

4. Even Washington can only spend so much money so fast.

5. Liberals can complain about the stimulus having too many tax cuts, but even Team Obama thought more spending was unrealistic.

6. Team Obama wanted to use courts to force massive mortgage principal writedowns.

7. Team Obama thought a stimulus plan of more than $1 trillion would spook financial markets and send interest rates climbing.

8. Greg Mankiw, economic adviser to Mitt Romney, was dubious about the stimulus.

9. But the Fed was a stimulus enabler.

10. IPAB was there at the very beginning.

11. The financial crisis wasn’t just Wall Street’s fault.

(more…)

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), who infamously argued for the death of the private insurance industry, and whose husband drafted the political blueprint for Obamacare from federal prison, told Democrats at a rally today that they had to re-elect President Barack Obama in order to achieve single-payer health care.

The Hill reports (emphasis added):

Schakowsky, a vocal supporter of healthcare reform, warned liberals not to turn away from Obama because they didn’t get all they wanted in the new law.

“Losing in November is not an option,” she said. “It doesn’t make it easier to get single-payer or even a public option. It makes it impossible.”

Schakowsky’s remarks in 2009, together with those of Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), among others, created suspicion at the time that Obamacare was a “Trojan Horse” for a single-payer system of socialized medicine:

Her remarks today would seem to confirm that suspicion.

While Republicans intend to vote to repeal Obamacare, Democrats are being urged to vote not just to defend Obamacare, but to expand it into a full system of socialized medicine at the federal level. (more…)

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) hasn’t been rated America’s most liberal senator two years running by accident, nor as a result of some sudden leftward shift. If Sherrod’s votes from 1993-98 and 1999-2004 weren’t convincing enough, take a gander at recent reasons he should be a single-term senator.

Following are some of Sherrod’s notable votes from the list tracked by the American Conservative Union (ACU).

• 2005: Sherrod voted to block oil drilling in ANWR, hike fuel efficiency standards, and spend taxpayer funds on embryonic stem cell research. He voted against bankruptcy law reform, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac reform, tying UN funding to UN reforms, and requiring parental notification to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion.  ACU Rating: 4
• 2006: Sherrod voted to impose Net Neutrality. He voted against a capital gains tax cut, a death tax cut, and ending the offshore oil & gas drilling moratorium.  ACU Rating :25

(more…)

Did you know your recent appointee to the President’s Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities, Peter Bell of Autism Speaks, has a long history of supporting pseudo-science that can harm children? It’s true; Autism Speaks’ Executive Vice President of Programs and Services supports the widely debunked and incredibly harmful theory that vaccines cause autism.

Many people don’t know that one of the most important people in the Autism Speaks camp is an anti-vaxer. It would be an embarrassment to Autism Speaks if they had to admit that they still hold onto a bogus theory that could potentially kill children.  Thank goodness Left Brain/Right Brain’s Kevin Leitch is paying attention.

There is more. In January of 2009, Autism Speaks withdrew its support of the Inter-Agency Autism Coordinating Committee’s (IACC) Strategic Plan for Autism Research when IACC made a decision not to include research objectives connecting vaccines to autism. As a result, Alison Singer, a high-ranking official from Autism Speaks resigned. In an interview with Newsweek, Singer stated:

At some point, you have to say, “This question has been asked and answered and it’s time to move on.” We need to be able to say, “Yes, we are now satisfied that the earth is round.”

(more…)

While the Old Media has been ecstatic over recent job numbers, claiming that some 200,000 jobs have been added to the economy, we should note that while Obama giveth Obama also taketh away. The media may be trying to claim the President has “created or saved” jobs (the latest weasel word is he’s created job opportunity) but his policies have also cost jobs. In particular his policies are costing jobs in the medical field.

Last week, layoffs were announced at the University of Mississippi Medical Center due in part to the 80 million dollars that it will cost to implement a new computer system named EPIC Systems, Obama’s newly mandated electronic medical records system.

Naturally, the system Obama is forcing on an entire nation of medical professionals and hospitals is the same system owned and operated by Judith Faulkner, one of his own big donors. Faulkner is also a big donor to the Democrat Party. Not surprisingly, besides affording her the lucrative, crony capitalist business deal, Obama also put Faulkner in a key role on the Health Information Technology Policy Committee, the committee responsible for implementing the President’s e-records policy. She has become known as Obama’s medical records czar.

As hospitals and doctors are forced to launch their own EPIC Systems portals, the costs are forcing hard choices for administrators. All to implement what many call a flawed system.

(more…)

In the battle to dodge Obamacare’s costly requirements, Big Labor–one of President Obama’s biggest backers and a strong support of Mr. Obama’s healthcare overhaul–is winning.  Big time.

As Paul Conner of the Daily Caller reports:

Documents released in a classic Friday afternoon news dump show that labor unions representing 543,812 workers received waivers from President Barack Obama‘s signature legislation since June 17, 2011.

By contrast, private employers with a total of 69,813 employees, many of whom work for small businesses, were granted waivers.

As early as last October, Democrats like Rep. Nancy Pelosi were busy downplaying the 1,800 waivers the Department of Health and Human Services had then-issued.

They’re small. I couldn’t speak to all 1,800 of them, but some of the lists that I have seen have been very, very small companies. They will not have a big impact on the economy of our country.

One of those “very, very small companies” was McDonalds.

Five months before Rep. Pelosi’s comments, it was revealed that three dozen of the businesses in her congressional district had received Obamacare waivers.

(more…)

I did a debate on income inequality for PBS but haven’t written much about the issue because I think it is a misguided diversion.

One frustrating aspect of this debate is that folks on the left genuinely seem to think the economy is a fixed pie and that rich people get money by impoverishing others.

This is utter nonsense. Just look at this chart comparing North Korea and South Korea, or this chart comparing Chile, Argentina, and Venezuela. With the right policies, countries can get much richer over time, yielding enormous benefits for the average household.

More rational leftists understand this data, so they change the argument by asserting that the rich are getting richer faster than the poor are getting richer and that politicians should “solve” this alleged problem with class-warfare tax policy and more redistribution.

They even cite numbers from the biased bureaucrats at the Congressional Budget Office to supposedly prove their point.

There are all sorts of methodological problems with this kind of research, including the fact that people move up and down the income ladder over time, so it is very sketchy to compare, say, the top 20 percent in 1990 with the top 20 percent in 2010.

But even if you incorrectly assume that all households are locked into their current income levels, the data used by the left is deeply flawed. (more…)

The United States is at a fork in the road regarding which way we will go as a people. The 2012 election could be the most important in our lifetime, and conservative leaders have reached a consensus on how to channel the energy and concerns of the American people to realize historic change this year.

The status quo will not survive the year. Our debt and spending have reached catastrophic proportions in the context of global financial difficulties and political upheaval. Consequently, by the end of 2012, America will either have taken a decisive step toward socialistic collectivism in the name of “equality” and “social justice,” where businesses and owners are punitively taxed to “pay their fair share,” or America will take a major step in the direction of returning to our Founders’ constitutional government, restoring the rule of law, federalism, free enterprise, and individual initiative and responsibility.

The American people will decide which path to take in the 2012 elections, not only in the general election on November 6 but also in the nominating process in primaries over the next several months for all major offices, including the presidency. Conservatives must act in a concerted and informed fashion in all of these contests to shape the public dialogue and thoroughly vet the candidates.

To achieve these ends, top conservative leaders acting under the umbrella of the Conservative Action Project have released “A Conservative Consensus for 2012” announcing agreement on major policies. These issues span all three wings of the conservative movement: economic, social, and national security.

(more…)

Repeal and Replace. That was the common refrain when House Republicans actually repealed ObamaCare in their chamber a year ago. Of course, the Senate Democrats rejected the repeal. But now there is a chance- some would say even a strong chance- that ObamaCare will be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court before the election in November. If the high Court decides that the individual mandate, which forces individuals to purchase health insurance, is unconstitutional, and that President Obama’s signature legislation cannot go forward without that mandate, ObamaCare will stop dead in its tracks. Then what?

That’s where the Replace part comes in. Now, I won’t whine and complain about how things seem to take a long time to get done in Washington, but the replacement for ObamaCare should be on the assembly line, waiting to be packaged and sent to stores near all of us. We know the talking points that make good common sense: purchase health insurance across state lines, own our health insurance policies so they are portable, tort reform, free-market principles, etc. Of course, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin), the reliable person that he is, has thought through a great deal of this, and has based his conservative answer to health care reform on his Medicare reform proposal.

But, where are the details and how do we plug ObamaCare’s replacement into our lives if the law is declared unconstitutional?

(more…)

Recently, an aggressive media campaign has been launched by Let’s Move, a government-funded fitness initiative led by Michelle Obama.

As you will see in this TV spot that’s airing, one of many, the message of the Let’s Move campaign is quite simple: Lying to your children is fine because it’s good for them.

Let’s Move should be relabeled Let’s Lie.

(more…)

We were so full of “hope” for “change.” No, I am not talking about the election of Barack Obama, one of the most effective Progressive presidents in American history. I am speaking of the excitement felt within the Conservative, Libertarian and Center Right and Left political communities after the 2010 election delivered the House and a non-filibuster proof Senate to the American people. Finally, most of us thought, some balance in the federal government. Maybe, just maybe, the Progressives and Liberal Democrats in federal government would be forced to the table of true and honest compromise; compromise fitting of a truly free people. But, as we look back over the year, what did we really get for all that so-called “compromise?”

With Republicans in control of the US House of Representatives, the body where – by the mandate of the US Constitution – all legislation relating to revenue is to begin, many on the Right and in the Center believed that the reckless and spendthrift fiscal actions of the 111th Congress would be constrained if not reversed. With a sizable number of new members identifying with the oft demonized TEA Party, there was high hope for a glimmer of fiscal sanity to emerge from the halls of Congress. And while the TEA Party members of Congress are to be congratulated for doing exactly what their constituents sent them to Washington to do, in the end, they were thwarted by establishment, inside the beltway Republicans and the despotic obstructionism foisted upon them by Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-NV, (to be fair, Reid was aided by a less than reform-minded Republican leadership in the senate, led by Mitch McConnell, R-KY).

The Budget
In absolute defiance of the fact that it is law that Congress must pass an annual budget for the federal government, Senate Democrats – once again, led by the indignant political disgrace that is Harry Reid – refused to abide by said law in passing, reconciling and advancing to the President an annual budget. It has been over 900 days – almost three years – since the last budget has been presented to the President for his signature or veto.

(more…)