.JPG) THE ARIZONA CONSERVATIVE |
||||
|
|
WASHINGTON WATCH
State's Democratic Delegation Voted for Government Health Care By Tom Jenney, Arizona Director Last weekend, Representatives Gabrielle Giffords, Raul Grijalva, Ann Kirkpatrick, Harry Mitchell, and Ed Pastor voted in favor of HR 3962, Nancy Pelosi’s national health care bill. There are dozens of heinous elements in this bill, but here is a short sample of the contents: • Prison terms and/or gigantic fines for individuals who do not obey the federal government’s mandate to sign up for one of the (expensive) federally approved health insurance plans and do not pay the resulting tax penalty. See S ection 7203, which would create the misdemeanor “crime” of willful failure to pay, and punish that “crime” with a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year. And see Section 7201, which would create the felony “crime” of willful evasion, and punish that “crime” with a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years. •Government takeover of health insurance. HR 3962 would put one-sixth of the U.S. economy under the heavy thumb of Congress and federal regulators, soon turning the private health insurance industry into a small cartel of highly regulated public utilities – a sure recipe for destroying consumer choice and hindering technological innovation. The new federal “health choices commissioner” (an Orwellian title) would actually be in charge of limiting the choices patients can make with regard to insurance policies. The commissioner would determine a package of “essential benefits” that must be included in every plan in the federally regulated “exchange.” And under HR 3962, tens of millions of Americans would be railroaded into enrolling in one of the plans in the exchange (Section 202 has very weak grandfathering provisions). With almost half of the country already enrolled in government-subsidized health care, what is left of the private health insurance market would become increasingly small and unviable. •No exit. Many Americans have chosen Health Savings Accounts as a way to save money, and by doing so, they are helping to put some downward pressure on medical prices. But under HR 3962, the health “choices” commissioner would mandate that ALL insurance plans cover an increasingly long and expensive list of benefits as first-dollar coverage. That means that families would not be allowed to choose low-premium, high-deductible plans like HSAs. That would be very bad news for the country, because the HSA model is the only one that can bring down health care costs without having government rationing destroy the quality and availability of health care services. •Skyrocketing premiums. Under political pressure, the package of “essential benefits” under HR 3962 would inevitably increase, making premiums more and more expensive. That has already happened in many states, with state government mandates driving up the cost of health insurance for people who don’t need the mandated coverage. Mandate inflation is on steroids in Massachusetts, which was the first state to combine an individual mandate with an employer mandate—something the federal government would do under HR 3962. Massachusetts now has the highest health insurance premiums in the country. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that under HR 3962, benefit mandate inflation will drive up the cost of the typical non-group individual plan (which you will have to buy if you don’t want to be fined or go to prison) until it costs $15,000 a year in 2016. Cost increases will also come from new taxes on medical devices and on insurance companies, and HR 3962’s limits on underwriting ratios will shift heavy costs onto younger workers. •Price ceilings equal shortages. In response to skyrocketing premiums, the federal government under HR 3962 would also tell private insurance companies how much they can charge, and the government would limit their ability to charge different rates for people who have different health statuses or medical histories. That is the “price ceiling” you learned about Economics 101, and it would inevitably create a shortage of private insurers willing to offer health insurance. Small insurance companies would go bankrupt first, and the larger ones would follow eventually. In the long run, the only survivor would be the government-subsidized health insurance system. (Anyone who believes that Washington will not bail out the government-run plan or the “co-ops” has apparently never heard of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.) •Ballooning federal deficits and huge tax increases… The authors of the Pelosi (House) and Baucus (Senate) bills have engaged in some deceitful accounting in order to pretend that those bills would cost less over ten years than Obama’s completely arbitrary limit of $900 billion. TheWall Street Journal states that “ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years.” But even the $900 billion cost estimates would require America to adopt job-killing, growth-stifling European levels of taxation – including taxes on the middle class. •…followed by government rationing of health care. Unlike the private sector, the government almost always fails in its attempts to provide more services at a lower cost. When the government finds itself needing to reduce costs, its inevitable solution is to reduce, delay, or deny health care services. This process has already begun in Massachusetts – which is the model for HR 3962’s individual and employer mandates. According to the Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10381), from 2004 to 2009 specialist wait times “fell in most U.S. cities to an average 21 days, but in Boston they rose to an average of 50 days, even though Massachusetts has more doctors per resident than any other state.” (Note that the Massachusetts Legislature is now looking at imposing a Canadian-style “global payment” scheme to ration health care by controlling prices in private-sector medicine.) If the federal government is allowed to dictate what must be covered by all health insurance plans, it will soon take the next step, and dictate what must not be covered in all health insurance plans. Under HR 3962, the majority in Congress already plans to cut $170 billion from Medicare Advantage, the plan used by 30 percent of Arizona’s seniors. And government rationing of health care already occurs at the Phoenix Veterans Affairs hospital: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/04/the-doctor-will-see-you/ •The abolition of medical privacy. Under HR 3962, the decisions Americans make about health care and health insurance – which are some of the most intimate, personal, and private decisions people can make – would be subject to intense regulation and limitation by the federal government. Meanwhile, the (failed) “stimulus” bill is funding a national database to store and utilize your personal health care information. •Unconstitutional federal legislation. The power to regulate the health insurance industry is nowhere found in the list of the enumerated powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Even if that power were specifically enumerated, the many special-interest provisions of HR 3962 would be in violation of the provision in Article I, Section 8 holding that must be exercised to promote the “general Welfare” of the United States. Further, HR 3962 delegates dictatorial powers of legislation over one-sixth of the U.S. economy to bureaucrats in the Department of Health and Human Services – a clear example of what Justice Benjamin Cardozo called “delegation running riot.” To read the entire 1,990-page Pelosi bill, you can
get started here:
http://www.joinpatientsfirst.com/?page_id=21 Even though it is unlikely that Reps. Giffords, Grijalva, Kirkpatrick, Mitchell or Pastor have read every line of the entire 1,990-page bill, they are familiar enough with the bill to know that the above elements were included. Further, they have undoubtedly read national poll results showing that majorities of their constituents oppose a takeover of the health sector by the federal government. And yet, they still voted for HR 3962. Their behavior was reprehensible. Also, note that the Pelosi bill passed by only five votes. That makes Giffords, Grijalva, Kirkpatrick, Mitchell and Pastor directly responsible for its passage in the House. Franks: 'New' Democrat Health Care Plan More of the Same Failed Ideas Oct. 30, 2009 WASHINGTON, D.C. - Arizona Congressman Trent Franks today released the following statement on the heels of Democrats' official unveiling of their health care proposal: "Yesterday morning, Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats officially unveiled their 'new' health care proposal on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. However, despite their attempts to brand H.R. 3961 and H.R. 3962 as a new take on the health care debate, in reality, the bills are the same terrible ideas that Democrats have been stubbornly pushing for the last nine months, and prove once again that liberal, Nancy-Pelosi-Democrats have not heard the outrage of the majority of Americans who clearly oppose a government takeover of our health care system. "These bills are incomprehensibly large expansions of the size and scope of the federal government. The two bills contain an incredible 2,000 pages filled with new bureaucracies and red tape with which average Americans seeking simple, affordable health insurance will now have to struggle. And Democrats' insistence on including a so-called 'public option' in their proposal, despite months of vocal protests from hundreds of thousands of Americans across the country causes me to wonder who, exactly, these 'Representatives' are representing. I'd suggest that they certainly do not reflect the interests of the majority of Americans, who have consistently indicated that they do not want to see passage of any sort of 'public option,' which will undoubtedly pave the way for a complete government takeover of our health care system. "And in a shocking display of fiscal irresponsibility, H.R. 3961 accounts for an incredible $200 billion in un-funded proposals, and Democrats have made it clear they have absolutely no idea how they will pay for any of them. In other words, in the midst of an economic recession and a health care crisis, Democrats are seeking to 'improve' the situation by spending hundreds of billions of dollars that they don't actually have, violating every empty spending promise, including PAYGO, they have made to the American people over the last view years. It also flies in the face of President Obama's campaign promise to never support a bill that is not completely paid for. This is on top of the nearly $900 billion cost H.R. 3962 is currently expected to incur— and we all know the historical inaccuracy of the federal government when estimating the cost of new bureaucratic programs. "Unsurprisingly, in a vain attempt to cover the costs of so many new and expanded federal programs, the Democrats' bill would impose numerous new taxes, including a 5.4% tax that would primarily be shouldered by small businesses, a penalty tax on those who do not acquire health insurance coverage, taxes on a wide variety of health plans (including HSAs and HRAs), and a 2.5% tax on medical devices, to name a few. "Furthermore, by not specifically and thoroughly preventing the federal funds involved in the bill from being funneled toward paying for abortions, the proposal would amount to the largest expansion of abortion-on-demand since Roe v. Wade. "America's health care system does need to be reformed. But requiring the federal government to seize all control of our health care system, removing the decision-making process from the hands of patients and doctors and placing it into the hands of government bureaucrats, is not the kind of reform the American people are looking for. "The American people must continue to speak clearly about their opposition to this thinly veiled attempt to enact policies that could actually bring about the collapse of our health care system, which, with all its flaws, is still among the best in the world. And Congress must finally respond with policies that will accomplish the injection of more competition into the health care market, while adhering to the free market principles that are have been the engine of our unparalleled economic system." While the two newly-introduced health care bills (H.R. 3961 and H.R. 3962) are currently projected to cost about $1 trillion to fund, that remarkable figure will nonetheless likely prove much lower than the actual cost, given historic precedent. For example, when Medicare passed in 1965, the Congressional Budget Office predicted it would cost $12 billion per year by 1990; in reality, the cost of Medicare in 1990 was over nine times greater than projected -- about $110 billion. Likewise, the Medicare expansion of 1987 was projected to $1 billion annually, by 1992; the actual cost was $17 billion. Franks Says Dems Stoop to New Low by Attaching 'Hate' Crimes Provision in DOD Authorization Bill
October 8, 2009 Franks said, "Liberal Democrats have stooped to a new low when it comes to politicizing our historically apolitical annual defense bills. I could not be more passionately devoted to providing for the needs of our troops in accordance with the recommendations of our generals and warfighters on the ground who are paying the price for the liberties we exercise in America every day. However, I cannot in good conscience vote for something that in the same breath threatens the very liberties they are fighting to protect. The Leahy hate crimes language included in the bill does exactly that. "The hate crimes provision weakens the long-cherished commitment of this nation to protect free speech, the freedom of conscience, and the free exercise of religion, and it gives the courts a wider door for threatening these freedoms. It could allow pastors, priests, or other religious leaders to be found guilty of a federal crime simply for their teachings on sexual practices, among other things. All of this would inevitably have a 'chilling effect' on religious expression and would significantly undermine our First Amendment freedoms-- both of which are completely unnecessary in the DOD Authorization bill. "My liberal colleagues are pacifying their liberal base and using a critical national security bill to ram through one of their longstanding liberal priorities, I could not be more disappointed that they have thrust a controversial liberal priority onto the backs of our warfighters, and have forced a partisan vote where one should not have taken place. "I hope this doesn't mark the beginning of a liberal trend to politicize those noble individuals who make unspeakable sacrifices to keep every American, regardless of their political views, secure and free. Our warfighters deserve better than this from the United States Congress." Cong. Franks Defends Saying Obama the ‘Enemy of Humanity’ Due to AbortionNot All the Radicals are Happy with Current Efforts to Destroy MarriageSept. 18, 2009With socialists running the nation now, advocates of the homosexual legal agenda are moving very fast – too fast for some of their own.On Sept. 15th, by Cong. Jerrold Nadler (Democrat Socialist-N.Y.), Congressman John Conyers (DS-Mich.) and several far left socialists introduced the “Respect for Marriage Act of 2009” – actually designed to undermine marriage in America. The bill is consistent with leftists’ history of giving benign-sounding labels to radically extreme legislation. The bill aims to repeal the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Bill Clinton. That means no more “husband” and no more “wife” on marriage licenses. These would be replaced by “Party A” and “Party B.” Is that what you and your spouse signed up for when you got married? If successful – and pro-marriage forces do not have the votes to stop this -- it also means that your gender and that of your children and/or grandchildren will no longer matter. Equally important is that the federal government and ultimately state governments would no longer recognize the many benefits accrued from traditional marriage: • Better health and greater longevity • Less crime, less violence • Safer homes • Safer communities • Less poverty, more wealth • Healthier society • Better intimate relations • Less substance abuse and addiction • Less hardship and better outcomes for children • Less government, lower taxes Not all in the socialist and homosexual advocacy camp are happy though. As the Family Research Council reported this week: The effort drew a rebuke from the most outspoken homosexual Congressman, Barney Frank (DS-Mass.) and from Speaker Nancy Pelosi (DS-Calif.). Rep. Frank rebuked his liberal colleagues who are on the bill by saying they are going too far at this time. He favors instead an approach of chipping away at DOMA by passing legislation like H.R. 2981, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would give special protections to homosexual and transgendered employees. Furthermore, a lawsuit in California (Perry v. Shwarzenegger) seeking to overturn the Proposition 8 state marriage amendment and ultimately to get the U.S. Supreme Court to rule the federal DOMA unconstitutional, has been criticized. Advocates of same-sex “marriage” are fearful that if the ultimate result is a loss at the High Court it could set back their efforts. Cong. Franks: Democrats Censoring Republican’s Mail Cong. Franks considering birther lawsuit Cong. Giffords Flipping Out, Playing Imaginary Race Card Aug. 15, 2009 PHOENIX -- As Democrats in Congress continue to freak out over opposition to the president's socialist programs and excessive spending, Cong. Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-District 8) is playing the race card and resorting to extremism. News reports indicated that Giffords' staff accused her constituents of “manipulation and racism to spread their message.” In response, local citizens advocating against a government takeover of healthcare say “Giffords is lying” and they “have no intention of hurting her. And they’re not racists.” Like her rabbit-eared colleagues in the Democratic Party, Giffords cancelled a town hall event -- in Sahuarita/Green Valley. The turn of events led Augustus Shaw, a founding member of the Coalition of Arizona African American Republicans, to say, “Organizing a diverse group of Arizonans to make their opinions known about healthcare reform is not manipulative or racist, it’s the cornerstone of our American form of Democracy, a concept the staff of Rep. Giffords apparently no longer believes in.” Arizona GOP Chairman Randy Pullen said: “Resorting to outlandish claims and name calling clearly shows Congresswoman Giffords is losing touch with her constituents and reality. Her feeble attempt to blame her own voters for their frustration with a potential government takeover or healthcare is bordering on insane. All people want is an open and transparent process that takes their concerns into account. Canceling events, skipping out on advertised Town Halls or limiting access where only a few can speak their mind is absurd. People want to hear what she has to say and have their own voices heard. It’s really that simple, and yet she doesn’t seem to get it.” Franks Says Ginsberg's Quote on Using Abortion to Kill Minorities 'Appalling' July 13, 2009 WASHINGTON -- Congressman Trent Franks (R - AZ) released a statement on recent remarks by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "In yesterday's issue of New York Times Magazine, Justice Ginsburg decries what she believes to be a shortage of abortion access amongst low-income women. Justice Ginsburg states that she 'thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.' Justice Ginsburg's statement is appalling, but should be unsurprising to those who are familiar with the roots of the pro-abortion movement, largely organized by eugenicists who wanted to limit population growth amongst peoples they considered to be 'undesirables.' The recently released film, MAAFA 21, does an excellent job of documenting the prominent role racism played in bringing about abortion-on-demand in the United States, as former slave owners and elites turned to eugenics as a means of keeping minorities underfoot. I introduced the Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act, or PreNDA, in 2008 and again in 2009 specifically to address the disturbing undercurrent of racial discrimination in abortion policy. Abortion policy is not and has never been neutral. Instead, it targets specific populations, just as Justice Ginsburg surmised. A minority woman is five times more likely to abort her child than a white woman, and far more likely to have a government subsidized abortion clinic in her neighborhood. According to abortion providers, a shocking 50 percent of African-American pregnancies end in abortion. As we reflect upon the ugly racial divisions at the heart of abortion-on-demand, I urge my colleagues in Congress to support this legislation." H.R. 1822, the Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act (PreNDA), prohibits discrimination against the unborn on the basis of sex or race, making it illegal to knowingly perform or to solicit or accept funding for either race- or sex-selection abortions. Cong. Flake, 8 Republicans Hurt American Families, Help Cap and Trade Bill Win June 27, 2009 WASHINGTON -- Had eight Republicans not voted for the controversial Waxman Markey Cap and Trade bill Friday, and had Gilbert Republican Jeff Flake cast a vote against it, American families would not be facing sharp inflation in energy costs. With 44 Democrats -- including Anne Kirkpatrick of Arizona's First District -- opposing the bill, the Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats did not have the votes to pass it. But eight Republicans, including Mary Bono Mack of California, came to their rescue and voted for it. Flake did not vote, but if he and three more Republicans had voted against it, the bill would have failed. Winning by the tiny margin of 219-212, House Resolution 2454 was introduced to "create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy." However, this bill will severely harm American industry, driving jobs overseas to nations with less restrictive government intervention. It's also based on the faulty assumption of the myth of so-called "global warming," which is a radical enviro movement. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis found that by 2035 gasoline prices would increase 58 percent, natural gas prices would increase 55 percent, home heating oil would increase 56 percent, and worst of all, electricity prices would jump 90 percent. But the direct tax on household energy use is just the beginning. The energy tax also hits producers. As the higher production costs ripple through the economy, the household pocketbooks get hit again and again. When all the tax impacts have been added up, the average per-family-of-four costs rise by $2,979 per year. In the year 2035 alone, the cost is $4,609. And the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035 are $71,493. The only hope for families is that the U.S. Senate will defeat this boondoggle. Related Stories: The Renewable-Energy Scam | Waxman-Markey-Madoff Directly Redistributes Wealth to the 'Poor' Franks: Koh Will be Disaster, Destroy U.S Sovereignty May 12, 2009 WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Congressman Trent Franks (AZ-02) gave the following statement after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 12-to-5 to nominate Harold Koh as the State Department legal adviser. Koh's nomination will now go before the full Senate. “Koh will be a disaster if confirmed to the position of legal advisor to the State Department, as the position will provide a worldwide platform from which to undermine U.S. sovereignty, which he clearly does not respect. Koh has stated that that the Iraq war is a violation of international law because the U.S. acted without ‘explicit U.N. authorization,' and that as a violator of international law, the U.S. makes up part of an 'axis of disobedience' with countries like North Korea and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. "Koh has criticized America’s “distinctive rights culture” which he complains gives 'First Amendment protections for speech and religion…far greater emphasis and judicial protection in America than in Europe or Asia.' "Such statements alone are seriously disturbing, but the legal opinions such beliefs would surely yield would do irreparable harm to American sovereignty and would undermine Americans' constitutional rights in a profound way. I strongly urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote against his nomination." Franks Statement on Secretary Napolitano and DHS Report on Rightwing Extremism WASHINGTON, D.C. – Arizona Congressman Trent Franks (GOP) said the recent report by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) citing conservatives as a terrorist threat is a “disgraceful insult.” DHS issued a report on rightwing extremists, triggering a firestorm of protest. "The outrageous, unsubstantiated, politically-loaded DHS report on "Rightwing Extremism," shows a stunning lack of understanding of the real and imminent threats America is truly facing," Franks said. "It is also a disgraceful insult to the true heroes of our country. If veterans, pro-life and states' rights advocates and those who seek to protect the Constitutional rights of themselves and their fellow Americans are at higher risk for becoming domestic terrorists, then over 80 percent of the people in my District can be categorized as a potential national security threat.” Franks wants to know what taxpayer-funded resources went into producing the report and what documents and evidence were used to justify it. He said that using the resources of the Department of Homeland Security to target and ostracize political opposition, as it would appear is being done, sets an incredibly dangerous precedent and it's something America's federal government should have no part of. "The report claims the election of an ‘African American president’ and the downturn in the economy has caused ‘right-wing extremism’ and could possibly even radicalize our veterans,” Franks said. “To say that the noble and patriotic men and women who wear this nation's uniform and have laid their lives on the line to protect their country are now one of the greatest potential domestic security dangers to our country is so staggeringly irrational and insulting that I am unable to find the words to express it.” Additionally, Cong. Franks said: "President Obama and Secretary Napolitano owe it to our veterans and the rest of the American people to immediately and unequivocally disavow and repudiate the preposterous conclusions in this report, and they should also seriously consider firing those who wrote it. The President and Secretary have already waited far too long and the explanations and platitudes the American people have received thus far are understandably being perceived as half-hearted and insincere
Government for the Good of the People: 10 Questions about Cong. Franks wants Planned Parenthood investigated Senate Judiciary Committee Backs Pro-Abortion Obama Justice Pick Ogden House Okays Spending bill with UNFPA-Forced Abortion Funds, Abstinence Cut Chuck Colson: Feeding Frenzy -- Stimulating Times for Lobbyists 'Far-left ideologies' of four Justice nominees a concern
Home |News |State Briefs |Editorials|Letters |Key Legislation |Privacy Policy |Contact Us
|
| ||