Left-of-everyone Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) has a leg up on the layman in matters of faith: Sherrod labored alongside Ted Kennedy for a government big enough to drown us all in its generosity. Sherrod is so charitable with your money, he fought for a “public option” in Obamacare!

At a September 2009 Organizing for America rally in Columbus, Ohio, Sherrod promised to pass a health care bill with a public option — because Saint Teddy knew it was good for us:

When discussing the late Ted Kennedy, “He easily could have walked away” is an unfortunate choice of words.

As we saw last week, Sherrod Brown’s take on Christianity features a central government equal parts asphyxiating and unaffordable. If citing Ted Kennedy is Sherrod’s idea of bolstering a faith-based argument, Sherrod is not a person we should defer to on “moral issues.”

Aside from the implication that Jesus hates limited government, why should we resent the Ted Kennedy standard for socialist healthcare? Teddy himself said it best after the 1969 drowning of Mary Jo Kopechne: “I regard as indefensible the fact that I did not report the accident to the police immediately.”

Ted Kennedy was a contemptible man whose name yielded Progressive victories logic and basic mathematics should have rendered impossible. Whether his failings are glossed over by the likes of Sherrod Brown out of Christian forgiveness or partisan convenience, Kennedy should serve as a moral gauge for no one.

(more…)

Liberals have always taken the long view to government control. Most understand that getting Obamacare passed was just the first step. Now that they have control of the nation’s healthcare the real change can be brought about.

Speaking at the Netroots Nation conference in Las Vegas, Reid promised the left wing bloggers that “we will have a public option. Its just a matter of when.”

For those who think that the healthcare battle is over, this should be a wake up call. Until the most onerous portions of Obamacare are repealed, they will keep chipping away until they get what they really want—British style single payer government run healthcare.

This week, we’ve been reporting on the FDA’s attempt to de-label the drug Avastin for late stage breast cancer patients. This case provides valuable insights into how things are going to work.

(more…)

In the novel, the hero Galt and his followers retreat to a hideaway where they wait for society to collapse. But in America, regular citizens have organised in masses against Obama’s vision of socialized medicine, and they’ve embraced their own John Galt – a Texan scholar-activist named John Goodman. Known to many as the inventor of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and a key figure in defeating Hillarycare in the 90’s, Goodman has become the intellectual heavyweight of Obamacare’s opponents and his arguments are increasingly embraced by the new “Repeal and Replace” movement.

According to Goodman, the real problems with the bill are only just starting to emerge. As soon it was set to pass, Caterpillar announced the bill would cost them $100 million in its first year alone. And Verizon told its employees their costs would go up almost immediately because of the 40% excise tax the bill puts on the kind of high-end plans the telco giant provides. But looking ahead it’s clear to Goodman that the legislation’s inverted incentives would result in much more than changes to the healthcare system and the company costs but that the impact on the economy would be disastrous: labor dislocation, hiring freezes, economic assaults on lower paid workers, and spikes in unemployment.

In a “the health alerts” email Goodman listed last week the troubles ahead for the economy and for Obamacare advocates:

1.       People will be required to buy a product whose price will be rising at twice the rate of growth of their incomes and they will be barred from doing many of the things needed to control these costs.

2.      A bizarre system of subsidies will profoundly disrupt the labor market, leading to massive layoffs, contracting and outsourcing.

3.      A health insurance exchange will give health plans incentives to attract the healthy and avoid the sick; and after enrolment, to over-provide to the healthy and under-provide to the sick.

4.      A weakly enforced individual mandate will give people incentives to game the system – remaining uninsured while healthy and obtaining insurance only after they get sick; choosing limited-benefit plans while healthy and scaling up to richer plans after they get sick.

(more…)

More than 100 staff members appointed by three Minnesota congressmen who serve as chairman or ranking member on powerful House committees appear to be exempt from a key requirement in the controversial health care reform bill recently passed by Congress and signed into law.

When President Obama hit the campaign trail in an attempt to sway Dennis Kucinich (yes, he’s reaching so low in the barrel, he’s trying to convince Dennis Kucinich), the administration began its full-court press on its allies.

As has been said here and elsewhere a zillion times: the American people don’t want what the Democrats are offering.  But an acknowledgement by Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown on the Rachel Maddow Show gives an even better reason to oppose the legislation: it’s simply a wedge in the door to a “public option.”  From a Monday appearance:

MADDOW:  Should we not expect the public option anytime soon?

BROWN:  No.  Just—Rachel, you know history.  I‘ve seen your show enough to know that you understand sort of how progressive—the progressive movements worked.  When we passed, what, Social Security was passed in the ‘30s.  It wasn‘t all that great at the time.  When Medicare was passed, it was good, but not great.

… That‘s what happens here.  This—you can bet that a lot of us are going to introduce a public option bill.

(more…)

Good evening, and thank you for joining me.  Many of you in this room are my friends.  Some of you are members of “Organizing For America,” formerly called “Obama For America,” and before that “Operation PUSH.”

Many of you know me.  You have cheered for me.  I miss those days.  I just want to say to each of you, simply and directly, that I am deeply sorry for my irresponsible and selfish behavior.

I was unfaithful.  I consorted with Republicans.  I engaged in bipartisanship.  What I did is not acceptable, and I am the only person to blame.

As you know, I am trying to get a health care reform bill through Congress.  In so doing, I made a reach-around across the aisle.  I avoided talk of a single-payer system.  I watered down and then removed the public option.  I took out the death panels, benefits to undocumented immigrants, and federal funding for abortion that our critics so callously and falsely observed were in the bill.

I know I have bitterly disappointed all of you.  I have made you question who I am and how I could have done the things I did.  I am embarrassed that I have put you in this position.

(more…)

The enthusiasm at this year’s CPAC was palpable.  Conservatives turned out in record droves, optimistic and on the offensive against a government they rightly feel has run amok.  Dick Cheney and John Bolton amongst others predicted that Barack Obama would be a one term President.  I would take a more cautious view.  Beatable as I think President Obama is based upon his bombastic arrogance, blind elitism, blatant dishonesty, and boundless seemingly intentionally destructive policies, if the 2010 CPAC straw poll tells us anything it is that the conservative movement is still searching for its opponent.

Before delving into the numbers, it is important to note that while roughly 1/4 of the 10,000 in attendance at CPAC participated in the poll, around 50% of these voters were students.  And indeed the youthful Campaign for Liberty crowd was highly visible and energized throughout the convention, which explains the extent of Congressman Ron Paul’s success.  Paul, the staunch libertarian came in first with 31% of the vote, Mitt Romney the establishment candidate second with 22% and Sarah Palin the (absent from CPAC) Tea Partier third but lagging significantly behind at 7%.

What is fascinating about the results is that the top three spots were split between three different types of conservatives, and further that the top two spots were divided between two candidates so bipolar.  In my view, Ron Paul comes off as unrefined, radical and principled, while Mitt Romney comes off as polished, moderate and slickly political. Sarah Palin alternatively is the homey if not hokie populist.

(more…)

Attempting to enact his big-government health care scheme, President Obama and his supporters frequently claimed that a “majority” of doctors supported his health-care plans.  When the American Medical Association – which had opposed HillaryCare – signed onto Obama’s plan last year, the organization seemed to make the President’s case.  Most people assumed that the AMA represented most of the doctors in the country.  But in fact, the AMA represents less than 20 percent of all physicians in the United States.  And yet as the organization’s leadership moved more to the left, it held a near monopoly on media attention on issues pertaining to public health.   No longer.

As the AMA has become increasingly politicized in recent years – issuing a statement in support of climate change, for example, in 2008 – a new group of doctors has risen to challenge them.  Like other anti-statist groups that have risen in opposition to the Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda, Docs4PatientCare are challenging the AMA’s stranglehold on health care matters, just as other groups once challenged the right of the left-leaning American Bar Association to determine what judges are and are not qualified for the United States Supreme Court.  How Docs4PatientCare managed to barge its way into the closed-door meetings of Washington offers a lesson to other groups seeking to have a voice in their federal government.

Founded by Dr. Hal Scherz, a prominent Atlanta physician, the group of doctors expressed concern that like so many other professional groups, the AMA’s leadership have been  thoroughly “Washingtonized” – caring more about the pleadings of other lobbyists on K Street, White House invitations and Capitol Hill committee appearances than the professions they are supposed to represent.  As doctors have taken a battering over several decades from insurance companies, HMOS, and government agencies, Scherz says the AMA was a bystander.

“As the insurance companies become more and more impossible and government intrusion keeps growing, we’ve seen our delivery of care to our patients compromised and our incomes decrease,” he said.

But it was the AMA’s support for ObamaCare that really troubled Scherz and others in his field.

(more…)

Healthcare reform will once again be coming to the forefront on February 25 when the President calls leaders from both parties for a healthcare summit.  The summit is a half-day meeting to solve the problems in healthcare that have persisted for decades.  The President will once again explain his plans for healthcare reform, after having apologized and accepted responsibility for not “explaining it more clearly to the American people.”

The President has already given 29 speeches explaining his party’s plans for healthcare reform.  The problem is not that the public does not understand the Senate or House proposals.  The public understands the proposals all too well:  a government takeover of healthcare with a price tag of $2.5 trillion over 10 years, giant slashes to the already under-funded Medicare, expansion of Medicaid, huge tax increases that would cost an estimated five million American jobs and stifle medical innovation, and individual mandates to purchase government-approved insurance plans just to name a few.  The American people understand these proposals and have soundly rejected them, as evidenced by the recent election in Massachusetts.

America is desperately in need of healthcare reform.  I have yet to meet a person who opposes the idea of healthcare reform.  The status quo is not a sustainable path.  But the reform we enact must be responsible and must maintain the quality and availability of care and the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship.  Such responsible reform would include the following:

(more…)

Oh, the President must be really desperate

After repeating for months that Republicans have no solutions when it comes to health care reform, he now wants to discuss the very ideas he denied existed and has invited Republican leaders to the White House to find a “bipartisan” health care solution. How gracious of him.

You’ll have to excuse us for questioning the sincerity of the President’s newfound desire to work together. As Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, virtually every week in 2009, we requested to meet with the President to discuss health care and other central issues. Each time, a polite “thank you” email from the White House was the extent of our bipartisan discussions.  It’s interesting that only now – once his big-government dream is on political life support – does the President see a use for Republicans.  And it appears that use may be more political than rooted in policy goals.

In fact, the President’s invite to Republicans has come pre-packaged with some pretty audacious spin. For starters, this week the President has aggressively tried to frame Republicans as the obstructers to health care passage, unwilling to participate in the process.  That’s a pretty tough sell for a President with a 77-seat majority in the House and 59 Democrat Senators in the other chamber. And before taking that line, the President might want to check with his partisan partner, Speaker Pelosi, who famously told House Democrats they would be shut out themselves if they attempted to work with Republicans on health care.

That brings us to the second, more laughable, new claim from the White House: that the bill already contains Republican ideas and concessions from Democrats. Right.

(more…)

At the Washington Cathedral memorial service for conservative icon Jack Kemp last May, many of his loyalists asked the same question: with Kemp’s passing, would his infectious pro-growth optimism also depart our political stage? That profoundly sad day, it certainly seemed possible.

Just eight months later, there is a remarkable potential candidate in the Kemp mold who may oppose – and defeat – uber liberal Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). New York Republican, Conservative and Tea Party leaders are talking up the potential candidacy of CNBC commentator Larry Kudlow, a former advisor to Kemp and Ronald Reagan.

For decades, Chuck Schumer has bullied his way to victory at the polls. He’s a prodigious fundraiser, a tough campaigner, and has long been thought unbeatable. But as former New York Assembly Republican leader John Faso noted recently in the New York Post, Schumer’s “image of invincibility has been fed by the failure of Republicans in New York and Washington to aggressively attack his vulnerabilities.”

Many New Yorkers agree: it is difficult to find a federal legislator as odious as Schumer. He is personally responsible for much of the bad policy that led to the economic melt down of the United States. He stands firmly in favor of health care reform that is bad for New Yorkers and he supports a tax on banks that is poison for the Empire State.

(more…)

Politics is a game of addition – successful politics anyway.  Great leaders, when faced with a divided electorate, not to mention difficult economic times, use a limited agenda to forge consensus out of broken paradigms.  Once they achieve an initial success, they seek a broader consensus.  In the 1980’s Reagan faced a divided Republican Party and a fractured and dispirited nation.  Concentrating on the prosperity issue and our national prestige, Reagan first brought Republicans together and then independents and even many Democrats.  Indeed, so successful was Reagan at bringing people together, that in time he could rely on a group of Reagan Democrats.  Few other Presidents have had such success at building consensus let alone are able to claim a voting block from the other party in their name.

There is little doubt that Obama faced a divided electorate when he first took office and a difficult economic climate.  Rather than start with a limited agenda designed to build consensus, Obama did the opposite.  Obama chased too many rabbits at once and preferred ideological fights over practical solutions.  As a result, the Country is more divided than ever – not less.

The most recent manifestation of that divisive M.O. is the White House’s amazing decision to insist on a terror trial in New York.   Of course, it remains a jarring ideological decision to treat KSM as a “criminal” versus the warring “terrorist” that he is.  As I wrote, in my article Internment, CSI and Eric Holder’s Disarming of America, that decision will have profound negative consequences for decades to come.  To the point of this article, Obama is compounding his initial divisive decision (treating him as a criminal) by fighting with New York over the place of the trial.  It is a political fight which he cannot win regardless of the outcome of the trial.

(more…)

From Canada’s National Post:

Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams

Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams will undergo heart surgery later this week in the United States.

Deputy premier Kathy Dunderdale confirmed the treatment at a news conference Tuesday, but would not reveal the location of the operation or how it would be paid for.

“He has gone to a renowned expert in the procedure that he needs to have done,” said Ms. Dunderdale, who will become acting premier while Mr. Williams is away for three to 12 weeks.

“In consultation with his own doctors, he’s decided to go that route.”

Mr. Williams’ decision to leave Canada for the surgery has raised eyebrows over his apparent shunning of Canada’s health-care system.

(more…)

Rahm Emanuel: "We were involved in the legislation all the way through."

Video by Real Clear Politics

Hours before his embattled boss gave his first State of the Union address, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel contradicted President Barack Obama’s claim made just two days before that he had nothing to do with the much maligned deal to get the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) for the Senate’s healthcare bill just before Christmas.

Speaking to ABC News’ World News Tonight anchor Diane Sawyer in an exclusive interview on Monday, Obama denied being involved in what has come to be known as the “Cornhusker Kickback”

SAWYER: A lot of people think you must say at the end of the day, this is not who I was in 2008, these deals with Nebraska, with Florida…

OBAMA: Let’s hold on a second, Diane. I mean, I think that this gets into a big mush. So let’s just clarify. I didn’t make a bunch of deals. There is a legislative process that is taking place in Congress and I am happy to own up to the fact that I have not changed Congress and how it operates the way I would have liked. So that’s point number one.

(more…)

Beyond a pleasing sight for the heart, what would Ted Kennedy’s seat going Republican really mean?

A lot.

First, there would be the psychological effect.

On Democratic donors — it would discourage them from opening their checkbooks. On Republican donors — the impact would be electric in kindling their interest and generosity. On Democratic incumbents seeking re-election — it would make the beaches and golf courses that await them in their Florida retirement homes (and the lucrative lobbying jobs in Washington) infinitely more attractive. On Republicans considering running for the House and the Senate — it will help them see the truth: That their time is at hand! (It might even help our esteemed Party Chairman Michael Steele, realize that we can capture both houses this year!)

But in the Senate itself, it would really signal the end of Obama’s legislative dominance. He’ll probably be able to pass health care either by Democratic dithering in certifying Brown’s election or by ramming through the bill while he’s en route to Washington on the shuttle.

But, beyond that, the prospects of getting 60 votes on the remaining items in Obama’s legislative agenda: cap and trade, union card check, and immigration reform would slip away with the Massachusetts result.

(more…)

It’s amusing to watch President Obama try to stick it to his friends in organized labor by proposing a tax on union-negotiated health care benefits.

If it weren’t for the fact that the tax proposal would have a  devastating effect on the American economy, the situation would be downright hilarious.

Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO President

On Monday, a group of top leaders from the American labor movement gathered at the White House to share their concerns with the president.

The irony of the discussion was delicious. During the campaign, Obama and the Democratic Party (including the unions) attacked John McCain for suggesting that health care benefits should be taxed as income.

(more…)

By Barack Obama

It certainly was a holiday to remember.  Since I’m President of the United States, I was able to choose anywhere in the world to spend a long, lazy couple of weeks.  So, we got the 747 gassed up to head to Hawaii for the Holidays.  When I learned Health Care Reform might be held up in the Senate on Christmas Eve, many felt nervous that the holiday kickoff would hit a snafu.  Sure, it’s one of the most complicated and controversial bills in American history, but we had turkeys to baste and chestnuts to roast.

Great news, we cooked up a plan to slap a 10 percent tax on people who go to tanning beds — that ought to fix paying for all this!   Plus, Senator Harry Reid ensured the democrats who were going to bail on the bill were handsomely paid off, so we quickly squeaked out a win on that sucker before anyone had a chance to read it!  The partisan divide may now be bigger than ever, but I made it out of D.C. on time to head for some quality climate change —  to the land where palm trees sway for some holiday island fun — Mele Kalikimaka!

(more…)

My last article, Medicare is Already Rationing Care, focused on one small aspect of a much larger story, a story every American needs to know. The battle over the meaning of medicine began 2,500 years ago, not last spring.

In the late 1990’s I gave a lecture entitled “Post-Hippocratic Medicine in the Shadow of Nietzsche” in response to Peter Singer, the chair of bioethics at Princeton University. Singer had proposed we not consider humans “fully human” until they reached five weeks of age (after birth). During the first four weeks, he argued, we should allow the overt killing of infants with disabilities. This was “cost-effective.” It served the “greater good” by controlling the skyrocketing cost of healthcare.

For a decade I studied the question ”How did America reach a place in her history where we could seriously consider resurrecting the ancient practice of infanticide?” What I discovered changed my life.

For the past 2,500 years physicians served only one of two roles in Western culture. They either followed Hippocrates and served the wellbeing of their patients, or they followed Plato and served the greater welfare of the State. The philosophy of Peter Singer is not new—it has been with us for millennia. We once again stand at these same fated crossroads of Plato and Hippocrates as we debate the future of American healthcare.

Based on my study of history, philosophy, and current events, I feared we were rapidly returning to the world of Plato; a world where physicians worked at the behest of government, not solely for the patient. To help Americans understand what was about to transpire, I launched  Physicians for Reform in 2006.

(more…)

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released their annual report this week on total healthcare spending in the U.S. for 2008. To the limited extent that this release was even reported, the headline was that the growth in healthcare spending “slowed” from the prior year. From a growth rate of 6% in 2007 to only 4.4% in 2008. This in fact represented the lowest rate of growth since the CMS first started reporting this data in 1960. Given all the hyperbole about exploding healthcare costs this past year, this would seem to be wonderfully good news, worthy of national media attention. Might the cost curve be bending down (gasp) without government intervention?

Not surprisingly, media coverage of the report – and even the press release from the CMS itself – convey a less positive interpretation of the underlying data. By focusing on the fact that healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP continues to rise (if only slightly), from 15.9 percent in 2007 to 16.2 percent in 2008. And by attributing the decline to the economic downturn, implying that it is only temporary, even though the co-author of the report acknowledged that “health-care spending is usually somewhat insulated from the immediate impact of a downturn in the economy”.

Why the glass half-empty view? I believe the answer can be found in this accompanying statement from CMS Director Jonathan Blum (emphasis mine):

This report contains some welcome news and yet another warning sign. Health care spending as a percentage of GDP is rising at an unsustainable rate. It is clear that we need health insurance reform now.

(more…)