Obama’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009: What You Don’t Know May Kill You

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends:

Yesterday, the people of Denver demonstrated that they have far more sense than their Congresswoman does when 700 of them rallied on the State Capitol steps to voice their opposition to President Obama’s health care bill.

The President has been working hard in recent weeks to persuade us that such opposition is unfounded. In his recent prime time press conference, he soothingly told us that this legislation would help reduce the costs of health care. He went on to assure us that we would all be able to keep our current health care plans and would not be forced onto government programs. In conclusion, he promised that health policy would be free from congressional meddling, as it would be overseen by a nonpartisan committee of medical experts whose recommendations would have to be accepted or rejected in their entirety by Congress. He said all of this with a straight face. None of it is true.

As a former Constitutional Law instructor, Mr. Obama knows that Congress’s legislative authority cannot be limited in such a way. Had Mr. Obama actually read the text of the bill, he also would have known that it allows people to keep their own health care plans only so long as they stay with their current plans. If they try to change their plans, they are indeed forced onto the government’s program. He certainly knew, though, that the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, estimated that the bill actually increases costs of health care and enlarges the federal deficit by billions of dollars.

Denver Representative Diana DeGette, apparently a very credulous person and far too busy to read the 1000+ pages of the bill for herself, has taken the President at his word and maintains that there is a need to pass the bill immediately. Unfortunately, the arguments she uses to support the urgent need for legislation are rooted almost entirely in myths about our health care system; myths Dr. Clifford S. Asness easily and entertainingly debunks in his essay, “Health Care Mythology.” Fortunately, the American people are not so easily duped.

Money Morning and Stephen Hyde both point out some of the most egregious financial problems with this bill. As Hyde asserts, “The bill requires virtually all employers to offer minimum health benefit plans that far exceed anything most of them offer today.” This will necessarily increase insurance costs. As Money Morning shows, it also has a more devastating aspect. Under the legislation, any business that cannot afford to provide the extensive coverage the bill requires will be taxed up to 8% of its payroll. This will almost immediately result in severe wage reductions and layoffs as businesses attempt to defray that cost. This hardly seems like the best idea as the nation struggles for economic recovery. Yet, this is not the worst the bill has to offer.

Peter Fleckstein (aka Fleckman), has diligently combed through the legislation and assembled a brief, line-by-line cheat sheet. His full analysis, “The HC Monstrosity-All 1,018 Pages,” can be found at his blog. While somewhat cursory, Mr. Fleckstein successfully highlights some alarming details in the legislation. To list just a few, the bill provides for:

• Nationwide government access to our private healthcare and financial records, as well as our bank accounts.
• Exemption from judicial review of the prices government sets on health care.
• Government wage controls over physicians, as well as limitations on physician ownership of hospitals and other health care providers.
• Mandates for end of life care and consultations without benefit of legal counsel.
• Government interference in marriage counseling and childcare.
• Government appointed standards and rationing for what treatments we may receive.
• No private option if you leave your current insurance carrier.

These are just a few of the many devilish details hidden within Mr. Obama’s Affordable Health Choices Act. It seems unlikely that any sane person, after reading this bill, could support its passage. That may be exactly why Mr. Obama and the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate wanted to push it through so quickly.

The American people need to know the horrors contained within this bill. Health care represents 20% of our economy. That economy is now suffering a soft depression. If we truly desire health care reform, we deserve much better than what Mr. Obama is offering. This bill’s financial aspects alone have the potential to drive us into an unbearably hard depression, to say nothing of the damage it does to personal liberties. We cannot afford to make such massive changes to such a large portion of our economy with so little knowledge or time to review. All concerned Americans should contact their congress people and demand an end to this abominable and irresponsible legislation.

Mark Udall's Anti-Rush Limbaugh Resolution Fails To Appear; Update: Introduced Late Monday Night

Looks like Mark Udall finally followed through on his promise to introduce a resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh:

U.S. Rep. Mark Udall offered legislation Monday condemning talk-show host Rush Limbaugh for remarks he made about "phony soldiers."

"Congress should make clear that Mr. Limbaugh's use of the term 'phony soldiers' is beneath contempt," Udall said.

Udall, an Eldorado Democrat [**right next to Boulder, ed.], challenged comments Limbaugh made last week when he took a call from a listener who complained that Iraq War critics "never talk to real soldiers.

"They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media," the caller said in a transcript posted on Limbaugh's website.

"The phony soldiers," Limbaugh responded.

Limbaugh has since said that he was referring to one soldier convicted of lying about serving in Iraq.

He mentioned Udall on the air Monday in saying that "we can sit and hope that they do" offer a condemnation. "We can sit around and pray that they do, but they may have come to their senses on this."

Udall's resolution, introduced Monday night, says that Congress condemns "the personal attacks made by the broadcaster Rush impugning the integrity and professionalism of Americans serving in the Armed Forces."

There were 19 co-sponsors Monday night. None were from Colorado.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked other senators to sign a letter of censure.

This will make a nice campaign ad next year, as Udall's attempt to placate his left flank by politicizing the military in a cheap use of a phony smear only reveals his truly immoderate positions.

The only thing "beneath contempt" is the political grandstanding by Udall and other Democrats based on a debunked "scandal".

As pointed out over at Schaffer v Udall, is the would-be Senator simply groveling to the MoveOn crowd and throwing them a bone--and thus moving further to the left and out of Ken Salazar and Bill Ritter's "middle-of-the-road" moderate Democrat positioning, while not actually enjoying any accolades (indeed being criticized and opposed for his "meaningless resolution") from his supposed supporters?

---

The "phantom resolution" fails to show--costing Udall his treasured MoveOn constituency (though not all on Colorado's left were impressed), and Ben DeGrow notes the effect the proposed legislation would have on Udall's credibility.

Not a peep from Colorado's left.

But that's ok. There's always Sen. Harry Reid to question Rush Limbaugh's patriotism, or another Senate blowhard Tom Harkin with more personal attacks.

After The VT Massacre: Gun Control?--Update: Penn & Teller's "Bullshit"

Roger Fraley of XDA fisks an editorial from The Times of London that suggests "America’s deep-rooted and sometimes lethal commitment to its own freedoms" leads to the type of gun violence seen at VT. Money quote:

Don't tread on me. ...cold, dead hands. Lethal commitment to Freedom. All good thoughts.

Other European MSM highlighted America's pervasive gun culture, a violent society, the Iraq War, and even Charlton Heston as explanations for the outburst at VT. Our Constitution and the pesky rights afforded American citizens and their reluctance to cede them to an ever-burgeoning Federal Government was a recurring theme.

Perhaps the Europeans are jealous--jealous of our enshrined freedoms and of our ability to maintain a desire to keep them in the face of ridiculous calls for emotional, knee-jerk reactions to an isolated but tragic event. In similar situations, Europeans permanently surrendered their freedoms for a little temporary safety. We all know how Benjamin Franklin felt about that equation.

---

Liberal Denver blogger Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft calls gun control a "non-cure" and says what every gun-rights and 2nd Amendment advocate said right after Columbine:

Guns effected, but did not cause the killings. They were the means by which an unbalanced, disturbed individual carried out his rage.

For the time being, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid opposes a "rush to judgment" in introducing new gun control legislation--noting that the time for such measures may come down the road, even though the issue has been a loser for Democrats for nearly a decade.

---

Local gun rights organizations showed up to protest GOP Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani's visit to Denver, only to have it cancelled at the last moment due to the events at VT.

---

Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" offers their take on gun control. (obviously, NSFW)