Prescription For Disaster

Bob Beauprez on ObamaCare's Disastrous Health Care Tax Credit

Wed, 23 May 2012 05:12:00 GMT

AHEC's good friend, former Congressman Bob Beauprez, writes on the blog at A Line of Sight about the disaster that is the ObamaCare small business tax credit. His commentary is so insightful we recommend you read his entire blog post which can be found here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC.

ObamaCare Won't Work (Even if the Court Upholds the Law)

Thu, 24 May 2012 08:26:00 GMT

A new CNNMoney article states:

The Obama administration maintains that its Affordable Care Act is a complex construct that's endangered if the Supreme Court finds its central feature -- the requirement that all Americans buy health insurance -- unconstitutional. It's certainly true that eliminating the "individual mandate" will immediately expose the plan as unworkable. It can only succeed by creating a broad, universal insurance pool that collects big premiums from the young and healthy. If the young and healthy aren't required to sign on, they won't. Hence, the pools won't be remotely large enough to pay for the older, sicker folks who get the best deal, and are bound to flock to the state exchanges.

In reality, the reform plan's success doesn't depend on the Supreme Court's decision at all. Its faulty design virtually guarantees that all the things the administration warns will happen if it loses will happen anyway. Even if it stands, the legislation will spawn insurance plans crowded with high-cost folks, driving premiums higher, hobbling competition as carriers abandon the exchanges, and leaving tens of millions of Americans uninsured.

Read the full article here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC.

ObamaCare Eliminates an Important Market-Based Aspect of Medicare Part D

Thu, 24 May 2012 08:23:00 GMT

When Congress created Medicare Part D, the created two benefits for seniors. The first is a basic benefit where seniors pay 25% of their annual drug costs up to $2,830 (in 2010) and the government pays the rest. The second is a catastrophic benefit where the government will pay 95% of a senior's drug cost above $6,440. In the middle (from $2,830 to $6,440), seniors are responsible for 100% of the costs. The benefit to taxpayers is that the gap between the two benefit programs (critics call it the "donut hole") is that it incentivizes seniors to opt for generics to avoid the so-called donut hole. ObamaCare eliminates the donut hole and in turn one of the most important market-based aspects of Part D.

For more on this issue, go here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC.

Beware the Misleading Politicalization of Health Care

Wed, 23 May 2012 05:08:00 GMT

A new article on PJ Media warns of the coming politicalization of healthcare and spin to advance the government takeover of healthcare. Its author writes "George Orwell may have invented “Newspeak” for his novel, 1984. But in their discussions of health care, the Obama administration and their political allies have elevated the deceptive use of language to new heights." Read the full article here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC.

House Questions Obama Admin For Using Taxpayer Money to Push ObamaCare

Wed, 23 May 2012 05:05:00 GMT

Yesterday, the House Ways and Means Committee asked the Obama Administration to provide detailed information to the committee on the use of federal tax dollars for significant public relations campaign by HHS. Congressman Charles Boustany (a medical doctor) sent the letter.

A copy of the Ways & Means Committee press release can be found here.

Text of the Ways & Means Committee letter can be found here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC.

Government Can Lead by Getting Out of the Way

Tue, 22 May 2012 06:37:00 GMT

A new article at The Apothecary details how many well-intended (but misguided) government policies have increased health insurance costs. As costs increase, more people drop health insurance or opt-out either because they cannot afford the higher prices or the do a simple cost-benefit analysis and decide that the benefit is no longer worth the cost. In either case, it is government mandates and policies that drive up costs with the end results being fewer people with insurance. ObamaCare repeats many of the failed policies of the past which will make the problems associated with higher cost health insurance even worse. Read the full commentary here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC.

ObamaCare's Job Killing Tax on Innovation

Tue, 15 May 2012 03:28:00 GMT

Last week, George Will wrote in the Washington Post about Obamacare's job-killing tax hikes. He wrote: "An axiom of scarcity is understood by people not warped by working for the federal government, which can print money when it wearies of borrowing it. The axiom is: A unit of something — time, energy, money — spent on this cannot be spent on that. So the 2.3 percent tax, unless repealed, will mean not only fewer jobs but also fewer pain-reducing and life-extending inventions — stents, implantable defibrillators, etc. — which have reduced health-care costs."

Read his full article here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC.

How The Sale of Insurance Across State Lines Would Work

Tue, 15 May 2012 03:16:00 GMT

An interesting commentary about the purchase of health insurance across state lines would work. Read more here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC.

The Coming Government Price Controls Under ObamaCare

Tue, 15 May 2012 03:07:00 GMT

Supporter of PPACA (ObamaCare) regularly point to Massachusetts as the model for the federal law. That being the case, watching the direction that Massachusetts takes in healthcare is a pretty good indication of the direction that healthcare may go on a national basis.

Americans nationwide need to take note of what is happening in Massachusetts. Avik Roy explains what has happened in Massachusetts. He writes: "Under Governor Deval Patrick, Massachusetts has tried a couple of methods for limiting the government’s exposure to rising health-care costs. First, Patrick forced insurers to stop raising premiums, which led to a predictable train wreck, as insurers started hemorrhaging cash. When a state appeals board overturned Patrick’s decree, he shifted gears, and began going after the prices charged by hospitals and doctors. On Friday, the Massachusetts House unveiled new legislation toward that end."

This is quiet clearly just another form of government price controls. Read more about what is in the new Massachusetts law here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC.

The Future of Health Care Innovation

Tue, 15 May 2012 02:44:00 GMT

ObamaCare imposes a series of tax hikes - including on medical innovators. Grace-Marie Turner explains exactly what this will mean to patients and their health care:

"ZOLL Medical Corporation is one of the medical device companies in the bull’s eye of ObamaCare. ZOLL President Jonathan Rennert explained that the new taxes the law imposes on his company’s revenue – revenue, not profits – will raise ZOLL’s tax rate to greater than 50%, which will in turn drastically curtail the company’s investment in research and development. 'The medical device tax would have completely wiped out our profit if it were in effect over the last several years,' Rennert said. 'Every one of the jobs in our company is now in the U.S. But we will have every incentive to move jobs offshore” when the tax takes effect in 2013. The medical device tax will lead to less innovation, fewer jobs, and fewer lives saved.'"

Read the full article here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC.

The Future of Health Care Innovation

Tue, 15 May 2012 02:44:00 GMT

ObamaCare imposes a series of tax hikes - including on medical innovators. Grace-Marie Turner explains exactly what this will mean to patients and their health care:

Read the full article here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC.

Calls Grow Louder for Montana to Reject ObamaCare Exchanges

Mon, 07 May 2012 07:48:00 GMT

On April 27, 2012, The Bozeman Daily Chronicle published one of the most coherent opinion pieces in a call for states to reject creating an ObamaCare health insurance exchange. The piece states the following:

This exchange is being sold as a free-market tool for its simplicity, innovative design and ease of use, but these exchanges are nothing of the sort.Health care exchanges voluntarily created by market participants could be something that conservatives support. However, the exchanges created by President Obama and his Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must be opposed. These exchanges heap thousands of pages of rules, regulations and mandates on Montana’s insurance market, hurting competition and increasing premiums for consumers. Even Jonathan Gruber, an economist and chief architect of the law, acknowledges this fact. In a study for the state of Wisconsin, Gruber found that premiums for individuals will spike by 30 percent once the law’s requirements are in place.

Read the full commentary here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC.

ObamaCare Threatens the Poor, Most Vulnerable Among Us

Mon, 07 May 2012 07:44:00 GMT

The Washington Times has published an opinion piece explaining how ObamaCare threatens the most vulnerable Americans. From the piece: "Obamacare most directly hurts women, an irony that receives little attention, given the great effort by the Obama campaign to paint its Republican opponents as being hostile to America’s women."

Read the full article here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC.

Just in Time for the Election, HHS Releases ObamaCare Propaganda

Mon, 07 May 2012 07:39:00 GMT

The Obama Administration has released a twenty page powerpoint presentation to give talking points and propaganda to help people push ObamaCare. The document is filled with a series of misstatements, mischaracterizations and outright lies.

Read the full article here and view the powerpoint here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC.

Democrats Believe They Will Continue to Play a Political Price for ObamaCare in 2012

Mon, 07 May 2012 07:25:00 GMT

Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute has a new article discussing the political price that Democrats paid in 2010 and will likely pay again in 2012. She writes:

Rep. Barney Frank has led a parade of Democrats in renouncing the passage of the Affordable Care Act, suggesting the far-reaching law may be a net deficit for the party on Election Day. "I think we paid a terrible price for health care," the Massachusetts Democrat recently told reporters. "I would not have pushed it as hard." He said President Obama should have seen the election of Republican Scott Brown to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy as a demand to pivot away from sweeping health reform two years ago.

Other Democrats have echoed Frank: Obamacare cost the president "a lot of credibility as a leader," said Virginia Sen. Jim Webb. Passing Obamacare "wasn't worth" the political cost, added Kentucky Rep. John Yarmuth.

"The climate out there was really ugly because of it," said Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash. Former Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala. says Obamacare "is the single least popular piece of major domestic legislation in the last 70 years." It will be "an albatross" for Democrats in 2012, Davis predicts.

Read the full article here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC.

Cost-Shifting Does Not Justify ObamaCare

Mon, 07 May 2012 07:17:00 GMT

The idea of cost-shifting (that the uninsured need uncompensated care, the cost of which is then transferred to others in need of care) is often used as a justification for ObamaCare. Jeffrey Singer, a practicing physician explains the truth about cost-shifting and concludes that this problem does not justify ObamaCare:

Singer writes:

"A major justification by President Obama for the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, which requires everyone to buy health insurance, is that every time an uninsured patient receives care in an emergency room, doctors and hospitals shift the cost to those of us who have insurance. But the impact of such cost shifting is vastly overblown and government, through the legislation, makes the problem worse, not better."

Read Dr. Singer's full article here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC.

Minnesota Governor Vetoes Health Care Compact

Tue, 01 May 2012 05:03:00 GMT

According to TwinCities.com, Minnesota Democratic Governor, Mark Dayton, vetoed the health care compact yesterday. AHEC has previously explained the negative consequences of the poorly devised compact. It would allow states to take federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions (undermining the Hyde Amendment) and to give health care benefits to illegal aliens (in contravention of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996).

In the case of Minnesota, the compact would have cut federal health care funding to the state by more than $44 billion over the next decade. Minnesota joins Arizona and Montana as states to have vetoed this ill-advised idea. The opposition to the compact, in the form of the veto pen, has been bipartisan in nature. Arizona's Republican Governor vetoed the measure as has Montana's Democratic Governor.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC.

Boston Globe Adds Voice to Obama Medicare Scandal

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:33:00 GMT

For the last two days, AHEC has shared information with you about how the President called for cuts to Medicare Advantage (MA) as part of ObamaCare. MA is a patient-centered program within the traditional Medicare program that Democrats have long despised because of its free-market aspects.

ObamaCare's cuts to MA threaten the program and Seniors' access to care. AHEC has shared other articles and editorials that suggested that the President was using $8 billion in taxpayer funds to conceal the devastating cutes until after his election, thus forcing taxpayers to hide the further negative implications of the President's policies on America's health care system.

Now, the Boston Herald has added its voice to this rising scandal. The Herald states:

"And there was more evidence yesterday of administration malfeasance on Medicare with the release of a report by the Government Accountability Office on an $8.3 billion “experimental” program run out of Health and Human Services.

"Remember how under Obama- care about 12 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage programs — popular for their extra benefits like vision and dental care — were going to be kicked off those programs? Well, that change would become apparent to seniors next October (the start of the open enrollment period for the following year), just weeks before the presidential election.

"Enter the $8.3 billion “demonstration project” which HHS is using to temporarily keep those programs alive — at least until after the next election. The GAO report said the project “dwarfs all other Medicare demonstrations” and is so poorly designed that there was no way of knowing whether the bonuses paid to insurers netted “meaningful results.” It’s what happens when you throw money at plans just to cover your political backside until after Nov. 6.

Read the full commentary from the Boston Herald here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

More on the Medicare Slush Fund to Aide Obama's Reelect

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:27:00 GMT

The Wall Street Journal has more on the Obama Administration's use of federal funds to hide the impact of ObamaCare's cuts to Medicare Advantage through his re-elect. From the Journal:

"Re-electing President Obama is really important to President Obama, which isn't news. What is news are the out-of-liberal-character acts that his Administration is committing to serve this political goal. Recall how last year the White House rudely overruled the EPA on its ozone rule, postponing it past November. Then there were those temporary tax cuts that go poof on December 31. Most remarkable is Mr. Obama's decision to flout his own health-care law to temporarily protect private insurance inside Medicare. ObamaCare slashes about $145 billion from Medicare Advantage, the program that allows one of four seniors to escape the traditional..."

Read the full Journal article here (subscription required).

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Obama Administration Uses Medicare Slush Fund to Aide Obama's Reelection

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:23:00 GMT

President Obama and Democrats in Congress pushed for cuts to Medicare Advantage to "pay for" ObamaCare. These cuts will have a devastating impact on Senior's ability to access care under the Medicare program. It has recently been discovered that the Administration is now using a slush fund to temporarily stave off the impact of these devastating Medicare Advantage cuts - at least until the election.

According to the Washington Examiner:

"According to a Government Accountability Office report published yesterday, the administration has been doling out cash from an $8 billion slush fund to temporarily cushion the blow from these cuts. The pain will come later, presumably after his re-election."

You can read the full commentary from the Examiner here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

States Can Improve Their Business Climate by Rejecting Establishment of ObamaCare Exchange

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 06:49:00 GMT

Are there many ways that a state could shield businesses in their state from an onerous, job killing tax penalty? In most cases - no. But in the case of ObamaCare the answer is a definitive "yes!!!"

ObamaCare seeks to have states set up insurance exchanges or government controlled "markets" whereby federal subsidies are dolled out so that people can buy heavily regulated, government approved health insurance. According to this article from The Wall Street Journal, if a state establishes an exchange, ObamaCare allows the subsidies to be given out (see Section 1311). If a state refuses to set up an exchange, the federal government will do so but ObamaCare does not permit any subsidies for people who access the federal exchanges (see Section 1321).

So, a state that takes a pass on establishing an exchange (as many states have chosen to do) is effectively telling the feds, "we aren't going to spend state tax dollars to do your dirty work - have at it." But here is where a state that decides to take a pass can really benefit that state's economy. Under ObamaCare, if someone receives an exchange subsidy, their employer is subject to a penalty under ObamaCare but if no employees receive a subsidy employers are not subject to the penalty. Get it? The bottom line is that states can protect job creators from onerous federal taxes if they refuse to create and set up an ObamaCare insurance exchange. That is a significant incentive for states to protect their economy and jobs. The alternative is to create an exchange, letting the penalty kick in, resulting in fewer businesses and fewer jobs which will create a double-whammy for state taxpayers. Taxpayer will have to foot the bill to deal with the further strain on a state's social safety net resulting from higher unemployment and would end up footing the bill to finance a system to hand out federal bennies. A bad deal all around for states, employers, employees and taxpayers.

Rejecting Efforts to "Fix" ObamaCare's Individual Mandate

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 04:03:00 GMT

In certain Conservative circles, some people have raised the issue of whether or not allowing for an "opt-out" of ObamaCare's individual mandate would correct the Constitutional infirmities of the law. For the following reasons, AHEC opposes any such efforts:

In America, we recognize our Constitutional rights as God-given and that government has only the authority expressly granted to government by the people through the Constitution. Our liberties are natural rights inherent in each person and are in no way dependent on the need for any of us to first assert our rights (call this negative liberty if you will) to limit government's power over our persons or our family. The Constitution does not give government unlimited power and authority to act only until such time as any of us say "no" (or "opt-out"), but rather government is restrained from acting until we, as a nation, say "yes" (through a proper grant of authority by way of an amendment to the Constitution). AHEC believes that the mandate is unconstitutional, in part, because it is an exercise of government power that exceeds those powers expressly granted to the federal government by the people under our Constitution. And we see an opt-out as a distinction without a difference as far as the exercise of government power over the individual is involved.
To cede government the right to permit opt-out is to give government unfettered power to set the rules on opt-out. What would those rules look like? Would Congress only allow an "opt-out" once per year during a "disenrollment period" (kind of the reverse of an open enrollment period)? Would you have to pay a service fee, penalty, bounty, tax to opt-out (under the guise of "covering" or "paying for the administrative costs")? Would government require notice to an employer or even worse the IRS before an individual can opt out? Would it take government "authorization" or acknowledgment before the opt out becomes effective? How long would that take? Who knows? Don't want to find out.
Congress has had "opt-out" debates in many instances in the past; think Do-Not-Call or Gramm-Leach-Bliley financial opt-out. The opt-out was probably more appropriate in the case of GLB because it was a consequence of someone already deciding to engage in commerce or a financial relationship with the financial institution. The initial act on the part of the consumer was effectively a commercial "opt-in" by banking with a financial institution before deciding to opt-out relative to information sharing. Why can't government at least hold itself to the standard it has crafted for commercial entities which first requires an opt-in?
If we want to de-link health care form employment an opt-out is about the worst direction we could go.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

The Looming Threat Facing Medicare Threatens Seniors Access to Care

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 04:33:00 GMT

Four Members of Congress - who also happen to be medical doctors - issued a report today that calls into question the future of Medicare. According to their report, the Medicare Trustees have said the Medicare trust fund will become insolvent in 2016, at which time it will be unable to pay for many costs. The report was issued by Sens. Tom Coburn and John Barrasso and Reps. Phil Roe and Phil Gingrey.

Sen. John Barrasso stated the following about the report:

“It’s clear now that the President’s health care reform was not the entitlement reform that the White House promised. Instead, it raided over $500 billion from Medicare in order to create a brand new entitlement program for people who aren’t seniors. This bad law put Medicare one step closer to bankruptcy under President Obama’s watch,” said Barrasso. “If Washington doesn’t act, seniors will have a much harder time finding a doctor. It’s time for President Obama and Congress to put politics aside and work with us on a solution to save Medicare.”

Read the Doctor/Members of Congress full report here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Gallup Poll: 72 Percent Believe Independent Mandate is Unconstitutional

Sun, 08 Apr 2012 00:06:00 GMT

According to a recent Gallup Poll, 70% of Americans believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Here is how Gallup described the results of the poll:

The Supreme Court next month will hear legal challenges to the healthcare law, which are focused on the law's requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance or pay a fine. Americans overwhelmingly believe the "individual mandate," as it is often called, is unconstitutional, by a margin of 72% to 20%.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Tax Impact of ObamaCare

Sat, 07 Apr 2012 23:53:00 GMT

In a series of new editorials, various groups are highlighting the various tax hikes of ObamaCare. AHEC has published its own summary of these tax hike, which can be found here.

The article about the tax impact of ObamaCare include the following:

Each of these are worth a read.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Three Myths the President Perpetuates but Which are Untrue

Sat, 07 Apr 2012 23:36:00 GMT

Three myths perpetrated by President Obama about ObamCare and the Supreme Court that are untrue:

Myth No. 1: President Obama, “[My plan] slows the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission -- a commission not made up of bureaucrats from government or insurance companies, but doctors and nurses and medical experts and consumers, who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best way to reduce unnecessary health care spending while protecting access to the care that the seniors need."

Reality: Actually, the law explicitly requires that the majority of IPAB consist of government bureaucrats and health plans, while limiting the number of board members who are health care providers.

Myth No. 2: President Obama, "Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

Reality: There was hardly a strong majority for passage of ObamaCare. In fact, Democrats held strong majorities in the House and Senate but many Democrats voted against ObamaCare. In the House, the vote for ObamaCare was 220 to 211 (with 33 Democrats voting against) and in the Senate the vote was 56 to 43 with 3 Democrats voting against.

Myth No. 3: President Obama, discussing the House Budget: “It’s a bad idea, and it will ultimately end Medicare as we know it.”

Reality: This claim has been called "the Lie of the Year for 2011" by PolitiFact.com. The truth is that the House Budget keeps Medicare program in place. The only thing that is certain to actually ‘end Medicare as we know it,’ is the program’s insolvency – a reality still rapidly approaching under the President’s plan.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Krauthammer: Obama v. SCOTUS

Sat, 07 Apr 2012 23:16:00 GMT

In response to President Obama's comments about the Supreme Court, Charles Krauthammer takes on the liberal meme that striking down the individual mandate would look political:

"Having lost the argument, what to do? Bully. The New York Times loftily warned the Supreme Court that it would forfeit its legitimacy if it ruled against Obamacare, because with the 'five Republican-appointed justices supporting the challenge led by 26 Republican governors, the court will mark itself as driven by politics.'”

"Really? The administration’s case for the constitutionality of Obamacare was so thoroughly demolished in oral argument that one liberal observer called it 'a train wreck.' It is perfectly natural, therefore, that a majority of the Court should side with the argument that had so clearly prevailed on its merits. That’s not partisanship. That’s logic. Partisanship is four Democrat-appointed justices giving lockstep support to a law passed by a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president — after the case for its constitutionality had been reduced to rubble."

Read Krauthammer's full article here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Mr. President, Do You Really Want to Talk About an "Unelected" Court, Look at the Senate that Passed ObamaCare

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:46:00 GMT

Yesterday, the President took an unnecessary and overtly political swipe at the Supreme Court of the United States. (This is not the first case of the President taking such action, recall his comments during his State of the Union about the Citizens United case and Justice Alito's reaction to the President's comments).

Here is what the President said:

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress. I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we have heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly-constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example and I am pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step." [Emphasis added].

Ignoring the fact that I take issue with the President's characterization of how conservatives would view or define judicial activism (it is creating "rights" by judicial decree, using a judges personal opinion to expand government's power over the citizenry, using the judge's views as a substitute for that of the legislature while simultaneously ignoring the plain reading of the Constitution or statute, and looking to foreign law instead of American law as a basis for ruling on a case), I strongly disagree with the President's characterization of the make-up of the Congress that passed ObamaCare. The President is misleading the American people on this issue - and he knows it.

The President wants to talk about the "unelected" - let's talk! Before passing the United States Senate, the ObamaCare bill had to clear a "cloture vote" which means 60 Senators would have to vote to "cut off debate" and end the amendment process. On December 23, 2009, the Senate held that vote and, by the absolute slimmest of margins, cloture was invoked. (See Roll Call Vote 395). ObamaCare passed the Senate only after 60 Senators voted to invoke cloture but of those 60 Senators who voted for cloture, FIVE, yes five, were unelected Democratic Senators.

WHO WERE THE FIVE UNELECTED SENATORS THAT PASSED OBAMACARE?

Sen. Roland Burris (D-Illinois). Burris was appointed by now-convicted former Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) to fill the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama after he was elected President. Certainly President Obama knew yesterday that his unelected successor was one of five deciding votes that passed ObamaCare. Burris would retire at the end of the 111th Congress and never face voters for his vote for ObamaCare. This U.S. Senate seat is now held by Republican Mark Kirk who was elected by the people in 2010.
Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Delaware). Kaufman was appointed to fill the Senate seat vacated by Vice-President Joe Biden after the 2008 election. Like Burris, Kaufman would retire at the end of the Congress without ever having to face the voters for his vote for ObamaCare.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colorado). Bennet was appointed to fill the vacancy created when Ken Salazar resigned to become Obama's Secretary of the Interior. He was elected in his own right to the Senate in 2010.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York). Gillibrand was appointed to fill the vacancy created when Hillary Clinton resigned to become Obama's Secretary of State. Ironically, the man who appointed Gillibrand to the Senate, Gov. David Paterson (D), was himself never elected Governor (he became governor after Elliot Spitzer resigned from office in disgrace). Gillibrand was elected in her own right to the Senate in 2010.
Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Massachusetts). Kirk was elected to fill the vacancy created by the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy (D). Like Burris and Kaufman, Kirk would retire at the end of the Congress without ever having to face the voters for his vote for ObamaCare. This Senate seat is now held by Republican Scott Brown who won a special election running against ObamaCare.
Honorable Mention: Sen. Arlen Spector (D-Pennsylvania). Specter was elected to the Senate five times as a Republican. Having never been elected as a Democrat, he switched parties and became a Democrat on April 30, 2009 and switched his positions on a number of health care issues, ultimately voting for ObamaCare. Ironically, Spector gave a lengthy floor speech in 2001 following Senator Jim Jeffords (VT) party switch in which he praised the idea that a Senator should resign if he intends to switch parties and stated he would propose a rules change related to party switches. Specter lost the 2010 Democratic primary and his seat is now held by Republican Pat Toomey who won the 2010 Senate election for the Senate seat.

It took five unelected Senators to invoke cloture on the ObamaCare bill. It took five unelected Senators - who had never been chosen by the American people - to pass ObamaCare. Three of those Senators never faced the voters to stand for election after their votes and another (Specter) lost his seat in an election.

When the President claims that ObamaCare was passed by a democratically elected Congress, it is up to opponents of ObamaCare to point out that the bill never would have passed Congress but for the votes of five unelected Democratic Senators.

UPDATE: Earlier today, a judge for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Jerry Smith, asked the Department of Justice to provide a letter to the court stating whether Attorney General Holder believes the court does in fact have the power to strike down a federal law. Judge Smith specifically referenced the President's comments when requesting the letter from DOJ. Read more on this developing issue here and here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Justice of the Supreme Court will Cast Initial Votes on ObamaCare Today

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:18:00 GMT

According to press reports, the Justices of the Supreme Court will cast their preliminary votes today on the outcome of the ObamaCare litigation. The conference will help determine who will be assigned the responsibility of writing the majority and minority opinions.

For more on the conference process, read here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Sowell on the Supreme Court Precedent that Could Decide the ObamaCare Case

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 20:36:00 GMT

Thomas Sowell explains that Wickard v. Filburn, a 1942 Supreme Court decision that first allowed Congress to regulate merely incidental commerce under the rubric of "interstate affect", is the lynchpin in the Florida lawsuit challenging the individual mandate. More importantly, Sowell explains why this misguided decision is wrong.

Thus far, courts that have upheld the mandate have relied on Wickard to justify their decision.

Read Sowell's article here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments on Individual Mandate

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 06:44:00 GMT

If you are interested in listening to today's oral arguments before the Supreme Court, check out C-SPAN's website and their related resources.

WARNING! Listening to many of the Justices ask softball questions of the government's attorney and the manner may drive you crazy!

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

States Should Reject Health Insurance Exchanges

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:18:00 GMT

The Daily Caller has a great explanation of why states should reject the establishment of ObamaCare health insurance exchanges. NIcole Kaeding writes:

One of the most important issues facing states this legislative session is whether to create a health care exchange to implement the president’s health care law. States are being tempted by words like “flexibility” and very large grants from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to gain their compliance, but states that value health care freedom should resist and refuse to implement Obama’s health care exchanges.

Health care exchanges organized voluntarily by market participants are something that conservatives could support. Exchanges should function as a free-market mechanism allowing consumers to make informed health care purchasing decisions in a simple, innovative and transparent manner. Yet, the exchanges as created by Obamacare and HHS fail to meet this most basic standard.

These exchanges pile thousands of pages of rules, regulations and mandates on each state’s insurance markets, harming competition and consumers. Forcing insurers to provide “essential health benefits” under “qualified health plans” with little to no cost-sharing does nothing but raise premiums, a fact even acknowledged by Obamacare’s chief architect, economist Jonathan Gruber. According to a study of the Wisconsin insurance market authored by Gruber, Obamacare will push up individual premiums by an average of 30% in the Badger State.

Conservative proponents of state exchange creation, like David Merritt here at The Daily Caller, argue that states will have “flexibility” if they create exchanges themselves. A review of the facts show this statement doesn’t pass the laugh test.

Read the full article here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Liberal WaPo Declares Obama Story About Mother's Health Insurance Problems False

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:47:00 GMT

As part of a "PR" push to push ObamaCare, the President and First Lady sat down for an interview to discuss the President's mothers health issues (actor Tom Hanks narrates in parts of the video). In 2008, the President claimed that his mother spent “the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.”

Turns out that wasn't the case but the misleading PR video makes it sound like it was. In fact, the liberal Washington Post gave the video and story "Three Pinnochios" meaning it contains "significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions."

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Senate Finance Committee Details Regulatory Cost and Lost Jobs Due to ObamaCare

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:38:00 GMT

Read the details at the Committee website here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

New Senate Report Details Side Effects of ObamaCare

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:32:00 GMT

U.S. Senators Dr. Tom Coburn, MD (R-OK) and Dr. John Barrasso, MD (R-WY) have released a new report examining the impact and consequences of ObamaCare Their report titled, “Warning: Side Effects, A Check-Up on the Federal Health Law”, is frightening as the Senator/Doctors details the consequences of this law.

Drs. Coburn and Barrasso report states: “Over the past twenty four months, American families have learned more about the President’s health care law and do not like what they see. Higher insurance premiums. A coming state budget-busting Medicaid expansion. Fewer choices. Less freedom and more government interference. Cuts to Medicare by unelected government bureaucrats. Thousands of pages of regulations. An unconstitutional mandate to buy health insurance. Penalties on employers threatening job creation. Billions of dollars in tax hikes and, once fully implemented, $2.6 trillion in new health care spending.”

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Listen to the Supreme Court Hearing on ObamaCare

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:24:00 GMT

Did you know the Supreme Court will be releasing daily audio tapes of the oral arguments over ObamaCare each day? You can find links to the arguments on the Court's website.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

AHEC Joins Health Freedom Organizations to Oppose IPAB

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:19:00 GMT

Today, AHEC joined several other organizations to explain the dire consequences of ObamaCare's Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) which will put 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats (not patients and their doctors) in charge of health care decisions. Read the full letter at Docs4PatientCare's website.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

CBO "Re-Scores" ObamaCare and it Will Cost Nearly $1 Trillion More Over the Next 10 Years

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:09:00 GMT

The Congressional Budget Office has produced an updated estimate of the cost of ObamaCare. This "score" shows ObamaCare will cost much, much more than originally projected just 2 years ago. Here are what many are saying about the new budget analysis:

House Ways & Means Committee:

"When the Democrats' health care bill was signed into law, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that it would increase spending on Medicaid and taxpayer-funded health insurance subsidies by $938 billion between 2010 and 2019. However, as Republicans repeatedly pointed out, this actually hid the true costs of the health care law, because the Medicaid expansion and health insurance exchange subsidies are not scheduled to begin until 2014, five years into CBO's mandated 10-year budget window. Today, CBO released updated information which predicts the Democrats' health care overhaul will actually cost nearly $1.8 trillion between 2012 and 2022, CBO's new budget window. Once the Medicaid expansion and exchange subsidies are fully in place, the Democrats' health care law is certain to top more than $2 trillion. Americans were right to be concerned that the country cannot afford the Democrats' risky experiment – it can't."

Sen. Mike Enzi (WY), Ranking Member Senate HELP Committee:

“This new estimate shows that the health care law is rapidly increasing Medicaid spending, because it is forcing many more Americans into this mismanaged, government run health program. The CBO analysis is one more example of the President breaking his promise that Americans can keep their insurance if they like it. According to CBO, 4 million fewer people will have access to employer health insurance under this new law.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch (UT), Ranking Member Senate Finance Committee:

“This analysis exposes more of the real costs of the President’s unconstitutional, deeply-flawed health spending law. According to CBO, the costs to taxpayers may be an astonishing $2.13 trillion through 2022 alone. While President Obama promised that ‘If you like what you have, you can keep it,’ CBO found that as many as 20 million could lose their employer-sponsored health benefits and 49 million more Americans could become dependent on government-sponsored health care. This law keeps getting worse and worse; it needs to be repealed."

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

HHS Issues Exchange Regulations

Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:07:00 GMT

Yesterday, the Obama Administration issued the long-awaited and overdue regulations related to the creation of ObamaCare insurance exchanges (a copy of the regulations can be found here). The regulations were met with criticism from Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell on behalf of the Republican Governor's Association which echoed concerns AHEC has been raising about the idea of exchanges for more than a year.

The RGA press release on the subject had this to say:

“Once again, the Obama administration has overpromised, oversold and under-delivered, this time with regards to granting states the flexibility needed to establish and maintain health insurance exchanges. The regulations issued today by the Department of Health and Human Services extend the federal government’s reach into the states and will cost the states millions of dollars annually to operate. This Administration’s inability to provide critical guidance to their broken healthcare reform mandate gives more and more credence to the necessity of the Supreme Court ruling this law unconstitutional.”

The pre see release also pointed out the following shortcomings of the regulations:

No clarity on what benefit mandates will be imposed on states
No clarity on cost-sharing
No clarity on risk adjustment and reinsurance
No clarity on the federal health insurance exchange that would be forced upon states if they refuse to implement the law
No clarity regarding who will pay for a federal health insurance exchange
No clarity on “partnership exchanges”

AHEC again renews its call for states to forego the creation of a state exchange (like Florida and Louisiana have decided to do). This is the only way that states can avoid being saddled with future mandates and burdens of ObamaCare.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

HHS Issues Exchange Regulations

Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:07:00 GMT

The RGA press release on the subject had this to say:

The pre see release also pointed out the following shortcomings of the regulations:

No clarity on what benefit mandates will be imposed on states
No clarity on cost-sharing
No clarity on risk adjustment and reinsurance
No clarity on the federal health insurance exchange that would be forced upon states if they refuse to implement the law
No clarity regarding who will pay for a federal health insurance exchange
No clarity on “partnership exchanges”

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

HHS Issues Exchange Regulations

Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:06:00 GMT

The RGA press release on the subject had this to say:

The pre see release also pointed out the following shortcomings of the regulations:

No clarity on what benefit mandates will be imposed on states
No clarity on cost-sharing
No clarity on risk adjustment and reinsurance
No clarity on the federal health insurance exchange that would be forced upon states if they refuse to implement the law
No clarity regarding who will pay for a federal health insurance exchange
No clarity on “partnership exchanges”

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Video Series: The Impact of ObamaCare - Part 7

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:01:00 GMT

Dr. Jill Vecchio, a Colorado physician, has produced a seven-part video series about the impact of ObamaCare. The videos include the following subjects: (Part 1) who will be covered; (Parts 2 and 3) what are the costs; (Part 4) state exchanges and employers; (Part 5) doctors and patients; (Part 6) Constitutional issues; and (Part 7) ideas for real healthcare reform.

The videos are certainly worth watching and we hope you will take the time to learn more about how ObamaCare will affect you and your family:

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Video Series: The Impact of ObamaCare - Part 6

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:14:00 GMT

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Video Series: The Impact of ObamaCare - Part 5

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:16:00 GMT

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Drug Companies + ObamaCare = Crony Capitalism

Fri, 09 Mar 2012 05:52:00 GMT

Lost in the debate over ObamaCare and the President's prescription mandate is the fact that it will actually lead to higher prices for birth control and that the biggest beneficiaries will be the pharmaceutical companies. The losers, of course, will the taxpayers. Avik Roy writes at The Atlantic that: "another big problem with the rule is that it will enrich drug companies at the expense of people who want access to basic contraception."

He also writes:

"Under the current system, drug companies have an incentive to compete on price. If you have health insurance that covers birth control today, your insurer is likely to charge you a higher co-pay for expensive, "branded" versions of birth control over cheaper, generic ones. If you don't have health insurance, and you're buying the Pill directly from the pharmacy at Wal-Mart, you have even more incentive to shop on price."

"Under the new mandate, this price incentive disappears. Insurers will be required to pay for any and all oral contraceptives, without charging a co-pay, co-insurance, or a deductible. This "first dollar coverage" of oral contraception kills the incentive to shop based on price."

It stands to reason that Drug Companies lobbying for ObamaCare equals Crony Capitalism. Read the full article here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Video Series: The Impact of ObamaCare - Part 4

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:19:00 GMT

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Video Series: The Impact of ObamaCare - Part 3

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:24:00 GMT

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Democrat Admits Obama Administration is Ignoring Constitution

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:35:00 GMT

Democratic U.S. Representative Kathy Hochul (NY-26) admitted to her constituents that the Obama Administration was "not looking at" the Constitution when it created the contraception mandate.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Indiana Senate Rejects Health Care Compact Medicare Takeover

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 07:49:00 GMT

According to the NWITimes.com, the Indiana Senate has stripped out the state's takeover of Medicare as part of the ill-advised legislation to create a Health Care Compact. Under the compact, states are purportedly given control over health care policy in their state and are required to completely (and dangerously) remake the health care system in their state. (As AHEC has previously pointed out, the compact's promises are completely false).

The compact seeks to give state federal money to finance programs that states would be responsible to create. In doing so, the compact ends Medicare in each state that adopts the compact. Indiana stands to lose $56 billion in federal health care funding over the coming decade.

The silliness of the advocates of the compact - principally the Health Care Compact Alliance led by Leo Linbeck III - would have the states first enter into the compact which requires them to remake their state's health care system while deferring the difficult policy decisions to a later date. Linbeck's idea sounds eerily similar to Nancy Pelosi's comment that Congress had to "pass the bill so you can find out what's in it." It is as if Linbeck was telling states, including Indiana, that they had to "pass the compact so Indiana legislators, patients and doctors can find out what health care will look under the compact."

AHEC applauds the effort of the state legislators to protect Medicare but it would be better if they outright killed the compact altogether.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Video Series: The Impact of ObamaCare - Part 2

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:31:00 GMT

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

What We Know About ObamaCare

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:31:00 GMT

Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee sent out a press release detailing what we know about ObamaCare so far. This is by no means an exhaustive list of the negative consequences of the health care law but it sure is enlightening reading. Here is what WAM sent out:

Health care costs for consumers and health care spending overall will increase drastically as a result of the Democrats’ health care law.
72 percent of Americans expect the Democrats’ health care law won’t make their families' health care situation better.
Despite promises of lower costs that were repeated over and over by the President and other supporters, 75 percent of small businesses that offer health insurance to their employees do not believe the law will slow the rise in health care costs.
Health care premiums will continue to go up, not down, despite President Obama’s promise to reduce health care premiums by $2,500. A Kaiser Family Foundation report found that health care premiums in the workplace increased 9 percent, or over $1,200, for an average American family in the year following enactment of the Democrats’ health care law.
Employers are dropping coverage due to the health care law, destroying the ability to “keep the coverage you have and like.” Another report from the McKinsey Group found that more than 50 percent of employers with a high awareness of the law say they will stop offering health coverage.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that the health care law may hinder job creation. Additionally, in a 2011 letter to Congress, 200 economists wrote that the law “contains expensive mandates and penalties that create major barriers to stronger job growth.”
Americans of all political stripes believe the requirement to purchase government-mandated health insurance even if they can’t afford it, the centerpiece of the Democrats’ health care law, is unconstitutional. In a recent Gallup poll, 72 percent of Americans said that this provision is unconstitutional, with over 50 percent of Democrats agreeing.
As a result of the Democrats’ health care law, more than 90 percent of seniors will lose the retiree prescription drug coverage they have and like and see nearly double-digit premium increases.
The Obama Administration continues to overpromise, overspend and underperform – all at the expense of the taxpayer. Consider these three examples:
Despite a $5 billion price tag, the high-risk pool that was intended to cover 375,000 people has only 45,000 enrollees.
The Obama Administration handed out more than one-half billion dollars in cut-rate loans, primarily to political allies to form cooperatives, many of whom do not appear eligible under the law.
The Administration has already nearly exhausted $5 billion in funds for the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP), which was supposed to be in place through 2014. By refusing to pay new claims, this is yet another broken promise in the Democrats’ law. However, the Obama Administration did not miss the opportunity to reward its politically favored friends – unions and state and local governments – which comprised about half of the entities receiving the federal retiree reinsurance subsidies.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Video Series: The Impact of ObamaCare - Part 1

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:34:00 GMT

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Sebelius Throws DOJ Under the Bus

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:23:00 GMT

Okay - DOJ has repeatedly argued that the individual mandate is a tax to fend off legal challenges about the constitutionality of the mandate and ObamaCare as a whole. This gives them the "hook" to claim the law is constitutional because it is based on Congress' taxing powers. The law itself, however, states it is not a tax.

At any rate, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius threw DOJ under the bus in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee the other day when she said that the mandate was "not a tax per se."

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Obama Administration Funding Radical Groups with ObamaCare Funds

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 22:11:00 GMT

FoxNews is reporting that the Obama Administration is funneling millions of dollars of ObamaCare money to liberal groups - including $56 million to a group with historic ties to radical leftist Saul Alinsky. The group, Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative, was given $56 million in taxpayer dollars to set up a non-profit health insurer over the next five years.

AHEC has the following commentary about the propriety of forcing taxpayers to finance this kind of government endeavor:

(1) This kind of endeavor should be financed through private philanthropy, not government coercion through taxation? In August 2010, an article was published at A Line of Sight that made the following comment: "Charities play a vital role in society, but the appropriate way to fund these charitable activities is through the individual generosity of the American people. American taxpayers should not be forced to finance charities they do not support." That is exactly what is being done here - taxpayers are forced to pay taxes so the Obama Administration can reward its friends. If there was real support for this endeavor, let private individuals fund the charity but don't force taxpayers to do this.

(2) This is similar to the manner in which the Obama Administration has funded its friends in the energy field. Will this end up to by Solyndra-care where taxpayers take the financial brunt of a completely failed exercise? Government has a track record of spectacular failures when finding enterprises like this.

(3) This should be offensive from the perspective of many taxpayers. Consider that people who work for an insurance company or have invested in one, are forced to pay higher taxes under ObamaCare in order to fund a non-profit that will comet with them but the playing field is not level. The non-profit does not have to earn more money in order to pay taxes like the for-profit insurance company does. That is totally unfair. Government has used coercion to pick winners and losers once again.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Utah Senate Ignores Jurisdictional Rules to Push Socialized Medicine

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 21:42:00 GMT

The Desert News is reporting that a Utah Senate bill to create a health care compact was transferred out of the committee of proper jurisdiction - the Health and Human Services Committee - and into a workforce services committee. Rumors had been circulating that the members of the HHS committee (which tend to be more involved in state health care policy) were not supportive of the bill.

The effort to move the bill and ignore jurisdictional rules is a political shenanigan similar to how the U.S. of House of Representatives passed ObamaCare. The citizens deserve better than this kind of legislative process. The bill should be considered in regular order, by the committee of proper jurisdiction - AND NOT in a manner that deprives citizens of the knowledge that their legislature's actions were on the up and up.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Obama Administration's Stealth Budgeting to Fund ObamaCare

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:18:00 GMT

According to Avik Roy, the Obama Administration has quietly increased the amount needed to fund ObamaCare over the next decade by $111 billion. This officially disproves the Democrat's notion that ObamaCare was "paid for", "budget neutral" and "doesn't increase the deficit" one iota (I think is what Nancy Pelosi said).

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Health Care Compact Supporters Pushing for Election of Advocates of Socialized Medicine

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:15:00 GMT

According to a reporter from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, a so-called "Super PAC" named the Campaign for Primary Accountability is advocating for the election of Dennis Kucinich in his primary race in Ohio's Ninth Congressional District. The Campaign for Primary Accountability, according to the article, has been largely funded by Leo Linbeck III, Eric O'Keefe and Tim Dunn. The article notes that Linbeck and O'Keefe are also behind the idea of the Health Care Compact (Dunn is too, but that was not noted in the article).

What does Dennis Kucinich believe when it comes to healthcare? He is an unabashed advocate for socialized medicine - in other words, a single-payer system. In fact, when the House first voted on ObamaCare, Kucinich voted against the bill and latter changed his vote (see an article from The New York Times about his switch).

Should it be surprising that Linbeck and O'Keefe would support a supporter of socialized medicine? Not really.

As AHEC has previously reported, last March "Vice-Chairmen of the HCCA, Leo Linbeck III also acknowledged that the compact and socialized-medicine were not at odds with each other, stating 'If a state really wants to do a single-payer system, they should do it.'” In other words, Linbeck has actually been a cheerleader for states to use the health care compact as a vehicle to enacting socialized medicine in their state. (See here and here).

So it should come as no surprise to people that when it comes to political support, Linbeck has chosen to help elect statists and supporters of socialized medicine.

Read the full Plain Dealer article here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Senate to Vote on Conscience Protection Tomorrow

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:37:00 GMT

According to Roll Call, the United States Senate will vote on conscience protection on Thursday. Stay tuned for more details.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Obama Wants to Slash Health Care for Military

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:14:00 GMT

According to a post at Big Government, the Obama Administration is poised to push military servicemen and women into ObamaCare's exchanges by making their current healthcare program unaffordable. This idea is particularly grievous because military personal often have special health care needs (such as rehabilitation, occupational therapy and prosthetic assistance) as a result of war wounds. To push them into a civilian system is to effectively deny our nation's wounded warriors the help they deserve.

Here is what Big Government had to say:

The Obama Administration plans to force active duty service members and veterans off the military’s current health care plan, Tricare, and into ObamaCare’s state-run healthcare exchanges by increasing Tricare premiums between 30 percent to 78 percent the first year and a crushing 94 percent to 345 percent every five years thereafter.

By squeezing service members and veterans out of Tricare and into ObamaCare through significantly higher Tricare premiums, the Obama Administration believes it can pinch $1.8 billion from Tricare in fiscal 2013 and $12.9 billion by 2017.

By comparison, Mr. Obama spent $20.5 billion on his Department of Energy green energy grants and loans program, 80 percent of which went to companies owned or tied to Mr. Obama’s top fundraisers.

You can read the full post here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

ObamaCare Program Busting Through Fiscal Estimates

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:51:00 GMT

A new report from HHS has some troubling information on a specific part of ObamaCare - high risk pools. HIgh risk pools is an alternative to provide health coverage for people with pre-existing conditions who are unable to obtain coverage from alternative sources. In such a pool, the government assumes the financial burden to provide healthcare to those who qualify for the pool.

ObamaCare, which radically transforms America's health care system and which worked well for the vast majority of Americans, was passed because, we were told, it was dangerous for 50 million people to be uninsured and that the uninsured - with their catastrophic costs - were dragging down the system. How does this hold up to reality? According to The Apothecary, only 48,879 people with pre-existing conditions have enrolled in the high risk pools. The number of enrollees is less than anticipated but the cost per enrollee has been far greater than expected. While the government was expected to pay $13,026 per enrollee the actual cost is come in at more than twice that figure at $28,994.

And has this number been well-targeted in proportion to the demographics of the uninsured? In a word, no. While 55% of the uninsured were under the age of 35 (approximately 27.5 million people) only 21% of the same group enrolled in a high-risk pool. That means that of those under the age of 35, 10,200-some people enrolled in a high-risk pool out of 27.5 million people uninsured in that group - or 3/100ths of 1 percent.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Free Isn't Free (When it Comes to Contraception)

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 21:15:00 GMT

President Obama is forcing insurance companies to provide certain services for "free". But if history has shown us anything, the government is never able to provide anything for free - even when it makes others actually pay the costs through mandates.

Insurance companies are very good at assessing actuarial information - including the impact that government regulations and mandates - and how that information will affect insurance premiums. While the Obama Administration has suggested that mandating coverage for certain services (like contraceptives) will help insurance companies avoid costs related to unintended pregnancies, the insurance companies don't agree with the Obama Administration's ultimate economic conclusion.

According to one article, "a new survey of 15 large health plans shows they are dubious of such savings.

Asked what impact the requirement will have on their costs in the year to two years after it goes into effect, 40 percent of the participants said they expect the requirement will increase costs through higher pharmacy expenses." An additional 33.3 percent of the insurance companies said they weren't sure the President's assessment was accurate, 20 percent said the Obama Administration's would not affect their insurance plans but that was because the insurer already included contraceptives in their premiums. Only 1 insurance company out of 15 actually agreed with the White House's assessment of the economic impact of Obama's policy.

Ultimately, this issue is not about contraception, it is about whether government should be able to dictate economic decisions to businessess - forcing them to buy and sell certain products as part of their business model and regardless of what that impact may have on costs and on their consumers. Government is incapable of assessing the issues related to cost with the same effectiveness as those participating in the free market - meaning both business and consumers.

You can read the full article here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Mark Steyn on the Perversion of Rights

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:31:00 GMT

Mary Steyn has a wonderfully written commentary on the impact of ObamaCare on individual liberty and how ObamaCare undermines individual rights. Please read his full commentary here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Senator Sessions Makes the Case for Kagan Recusal in ObamaCare Suit

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:45:00 GMT

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has written a powerful piece examining whether Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan should recuse herself from the ObamaCare lawsuit that the court will hear in March and concluding that she most certainly should recuse herself. Senator Sessions made the following comments:

"According to Section 455(b)(3) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, justices must disqualify themselves in cases where they have 'served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy.' In United States v. Gipson, the Tenth Circuit held that judges must recuse themselves if they have 'previously taken a part, albeit small, in the investigation, preparation, or prosecution of a case.'" Justice Kagan has certainly met this criteria for recusal.

"Recusal due to previous participation in a case is not an admission of wrongdoing, but rather an expected consequence when a government lawyer accedes to the bench. Indeed, Justice Thurgood Marshall — the last solicitor general to become a justice, and the justice for whom Kagan clerked — recused himself from 98 of the 171 cases decided by the Court in his first year, and most of them were cases in which the federal government was a party."

"Justice Kagan has recognized that her involvement as solicitor general in the preparation of the government’s challenge to Arizona’s immigration law prohibits her involvement in that case as a judge — even though the lawsuit was not filed until two months after she ceased performing the duties of her office due to her nomination, and even though she testified that she was not asked to express an opinion on the Arizona law. In contrast, Justice Kagan’s involvement in the preparation of the government’s defense of the health-care law began at least as early as January 2010, four months before her nomination and two months before the bill became law. That she would not follow the same course in the health-care case is dubious. These facts require recusal."

Read Senator Sessions full article at National Review Online, here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Krauthammer Explains ObamaCare vs. The Constitution

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:03:00 GMT

In a wonderfully written piece, Dr. Charles Krauthammer explains how ObamaCare is fundamentally at odds with the United States Constitution. Here is an excerpt from his article:

First, its assault on the free exercise of religion. Only churches themselves are left alone. Beyond the churchyard gate, religious autonomy disappears. Every other religious institution must bow to the state because, by this administration's regulatory definition, church schools, hospitals and charities are not "religious," and thus have no right to the free exercise of religion -- no protection from being forced into doctrinal violations commanded by the state.

Second, its assault on free enterprise. To solve his own political problem, the president presumes to order a private company to enter into a contract for the provision of certain services -- all of which are free. And yet, this breathtaking arrogation of power is simply the logical extension of Washington's takeover of the private system of medical care -- a system Obama farcically pretends to be maintaining.

Under ObamaCare, the state treats private insurers the way it does government-regulated monopolies and utilities. It determines everything of importance. Insurers, by definition, set premiums according to risk. Not anymore. The risk ratios (for age, gender, smoking, etc.) are decreed by Washington. This is nationalization in all but name. The insurer is turned into a middleman, subject to state control -- and presidential whim.

Third, the assault on individual autonomy. Every citizen without insurance is ordered to buy it, again under penalty of law. This so-called individual mandate is now before the Supreme Court -- because never before has the already inflated Commerce Clause been used to compel a citizen to enter into a private contract with a private company by mere fact of his existence.

This constitutional trifecta -- the state invading the autonomy of religious institutions, private companies and the individual citizen -- should not surprise. It is what happens when the state takes over one-sixth of the economy.

You can read the full article at TownHall.com.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

ICYMI: Contrary to Liberal Myth, Women Testify Against the Assault on Conscience Protections

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:03:00 GMT

Democrats and their friends in the mainstream media are spreading a definitive lie that no women had testified at a recent House hearing in opposition to the Obama Administration's assault on conscience and religious beliefs. The myth that the Democrats are trying to perpetuate is that Republican men are trying to deny something to women and won't even let women testify on the issue. Their claim is totally false and outright dishonest.

The Heritage Foundation details how this is blatantly false and has more information. As Allison Dabbs Garrett, senior vice president for academic affairs at Oklahoma Christian University testified:

"This debate is not about whether women have the right to obtain these drugs. Rather, this debate is about whether those who believe that contraceptives or abortifacients violate their religious convictions must pay for them. There is a vast difference between the right to make a purchase for oneself and requiring someone else to pay for it."

She was one of several women who testified against the President's policy.

UPDATE: The Heritage Foundation has more information about the assault on religious freedom here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Federal Court Protects Economic Liberty in HealthCare

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:44:00 GMT

Yesterday, a federal court struck down a Washington state law that required pharmacies to dispense drugs such as Plan B and ella (which are widely regarded as abortifacients or abortion-inducing drugs). Several pharmacists had sued the government arguing that the state law infringed on their religious beliefs in violation of the First Amendment. The court agreed. Read the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty's press release here.

Having read many comments on this decision from people who have argued that pharmacists should be forced to violate their conscience in order to keep their jobs, I would respond thusly:

Should government have the power to tell any business what products it must sell and dictate the manner in which those products should be sold? Setting aside the idea of religious faith for a moment, do we want government to have the power to dictate the specifics of how every business has decided to serve its customers. Should a business be forced by government to spend its resources to purchase and stock a product regardless of whether there is customer demand? At stake here is also the principle of economic liberty and personal autonomy. A business should be free to decide what products it will choose to sell and which it will choose not to sell.

In most cases, businesses will make those decisions based on economic principles - a profit-motive and supply and demand (both of which should be viewed as noble considerations, not vilified as seems to be common in the current political culture). But in cases where a business person is concerned about more than profit and their values lead them to make a decision that is not driven by economics and in fact may run counter to the "best" economic decision, that business owner must be free to follow the dictates of their conscience.

Otherwise, we run the risk of letting government micro-manage every aspect of our economy, to dictate matters of supply and demand, to set prices, to govern the inventory decisions of each and every business. We have tried this in the past and with spectacular failures as a result. FDR demonized utility companies and pushed for government intervention and control - it drove America further into the depression. Nixon tried the same thing with price controls on oil and it lead to an energy crisis.

Ultimately, government should be the last entity to make these kind of decisions. Their track record is so poor we would be better off letting each business owner make their own decisions and letting the free markets reward business. This is a far better method for allocating capital resources (and birth control) than any government mandate.

UPDATE: Senator Jim DeMint has an excellent article in The Washington Examiner about the broader issues of ObamaCare and individual liberty. Read his commentary here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Supremes Agree to Hear More Arguments about ObamaCare

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:07:00 GMT

Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear an extra 30 minutes of oral arguments on issues related to ObamaCare. The additional time will be devoted to hearing about the Anti-Injunction Act, a federal law that generally requires courts to avoid ruling on issues of tax law unless and until a taxpayer has actually been impacted by the law (i.e., has paid the tax or been assessed a fine or penalty). This brings the total time for oral arguments to 6 hours, to be heard over 3 days.

Read more about this specific issue here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Economics and the Future of Medicine

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:55:00 GMT

A Line of Sight has a must read article written by Dr. Kelly Victory about the current (and future) economics of medicine. ObamaCare takes a dire situation that has had doctor on the verge of closing their practice and makes the situation much, much worse. This article is definitely worth a read.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC