Va. AG Cuccinelli Speaks Following ObamaCare Ruling

Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli speaks following today's ruling on ObamaCare.

Judge Hudson's Ruling on the Virginia Health Care Lawsuit

Click here to read Judge Hudson's ruling on the Virginia health care lawsuit

BREAKING NEWS: Judge Rules Individual Mandate Unconstitutional

A victory for liberty!!!!   More to follow throughout the day...

Ruling In Virginia Health Care Lawsuit Coming Midday Monday

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s office has alerted the media that the district court decision in the lawsuit Virginia has brought over Obamacare will be handed down midday on Monday. This will be the first major decision at this level in any case brought by a state against the health care law.

Virginia Wins First Step In Obamacare Lawsuit!

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli made the following announcement minutes ago:

In a decision released this morning, Virginia survived the federal government's motion to dismiss. This is the first of many hurdles we will be facing - but this is a huge victory nonetheless.

As you all know - how this case turns out will have huge ramifications for the cause of liberty and even Federalism itself. While we are still reviewing the 32-page ruling, I would still like to point your attention to one of the concluding paragraphs in the judge's ruling:

While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate- and tax- a citizen's decision not to participate in interstate commerce. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any circuit of appeals has squarely addressed this issue. No reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce. Given the presence of some authority arguably supporting the theory underlying each side's position, this court cannot conclude at this stage that the complaint fails to state a cause of action.

The secretary's motion to dismiss will therefore be denied. Resolution of the controlling issues in this case must await a hearing on the merits.

A copy of the entire decision can be downloaded by clicking here.

Quick Question...

If the Federal Government can't even operate and maintain a military cemetery (read "Panel: Arlington Cemetery errors could be iceberg's tip"), how the heck is it going to run our Nation's health care system???!!!!!

Less Than Six Months Until the Largest Tax Hikes In History

"No family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase."
-- Barrack Obama, September 12, 2008

In just under six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2011:

First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief

In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011:

Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
- The 25% bracket rises to 28%
- The 28% bracket rises to 31%
- The 33% bracket rises to 36%
- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Higher taxes on marriage and family. The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.

The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

Second Wave: Obamacare

There are over 20 new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:

The “Medicine Cabinet Tax” Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

The “Special Needs Kids Tax” This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

The HSA withdrawal tax hike. This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes

When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they’ll be in for a nasty surprise—the AMT won’t be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired.

The major items include:

The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress’ failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families—rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.

Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be “depreciated.”

Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the “research and experimentation tax credit,” but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.

Tax benefits for education and teaching reduced. The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available. Tax credits for education will be limited. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut. Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed. The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.

Charitable contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also counts toward an annual “required minimum distribution.” This ability will no longer be there.

(Prepared by Americans for Tax Reform)

Virginia Argues Against ObamaCare In Federal Court Today

Virginia's argued today in federal court on its lawsuit against the federal govenment on the issue of liberty and the government's ability to force Virginians to purchase health care.  A decision on the federal government's dismissal request is expected to be made in approximately 30 days.  Here is the video of AG Cuccinelli's press conference following the oral arguments (thanks to the Family Foundation).

Join Virginia AG Cuccinelli for Informational Webcast on June 16

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed a lawsuit on behalf of Virginia to overturn the federal health care mandate following the passage of the national health care bill in March. After weeks of waiting for the federal government to respond, federal officials filed a reply in the U.S. District Court on May 24 with a motion to dismiss the suit, which is what the Attorney General's office expected would happen. Cuccinelli's office responded, and is now waiting on the U.S. to file its reply brief by June 22, and then the oral arguments on the motion to dismiss will take place on July 1 at 10 a.m. - one hour for each side.

If Virginia's case is not dismissed and moves forward, a summary judgment hearing is scheduled for October 18.

On June 16, Attorney General Cuccinelli will hold a webcast to discuss where his team is on the case, what you can expect going forward and the constitutional issues involved. To join the webcast, you must register on the AG's website. The webcast is free and open to the public, but is not paid for at taxpayer expense.

Remember to register and click here for more details on the June 16 webcast!

Update on Virginia's Healthcare Lawsuit

Earlier this week, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli provided the following update on the Commonwealth's legal challenge to President Obama's healthcare reform:

I am writing you tonight to make sure you know of an important development in Virginia's case against the federal healthcare law. Today, Virginia filed its brief in opposition to the federal government's attempt to dismiss Virginia's lawsuit against the new federal healthcare law.

While it's over two months since we first filed this suit - in legal terms, this case is moving at a lightning pace!

As I wrote all of you last week - the U.S. responded to our lawsuit with a motion to dismiss the case - which we fully expected.

What I didn't share with you was the in-depth legal reasoning behind their claims - and our opposition to their motion to dismiss. Below is a simple but thorough chart which explains our arguments in the case.  I would encourage all of you to take a look - and let me know your thoughts!

The U.S. has to file its reply brief by June 22, and then the oral arguments on the motion to dismiss will take place on July 1 at 10 a.m. - one hour for each side.

If Virginia's case is not dismissed and moves forward, a summary judgment hearing is scheduled for October 18.

The information below is a good preview; however, I hope all of you will sign up to attend our exciting webcast being held on June 16th - next Wednesday - to discuss the case and its foundation. Please sign up by clicking here today!

This case is fascinating, and I would encourage each of you to read our brief, as it is a spectacular mix of Constitutional law, American history and relevant commentary on the process the healthcare bill went through on its way to becoming law. To see a copy of Virginia's brief click here, but the first line gets right to a counter to the US's sickly view of federalism: "In the view of Secretary Sebelius, federalism is so withered and near death that States lack the power and right to go to federal court to test the validity of their own enactments when they conflict with federal law."

It's worth the time to read it, and you'll be better prepared to advocate on behalf of the first principles we're defending. And, by the way, that's also why we'd like you to join us for the webcast on the healthcare law and lawsuit - so you'll better understand why we are doing what we're doing, and you'll be able to educate others on our precious first principles. So, please sign up today! It requires pre-registration.

I hope you like the chart, I happen to think it's a pretty cool way to lay the whole case out at this stage.

Federal Government's Claim:  Virginia is not injured by the federal health care law.
Virginia's Response: 
Because the federal health care law purports to invalidate a Virginia law (the Health Care Freedom Act) under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, Virginia's sovereign interests have been injured.

Federal Government's Claim:  Because the mandate doesn't take effect until 2014, the case is not "ripe".
Virginia's Response: 
1) Based on several previous Supreme Court decisions, if a dispute is certain to occur in the future, this does not prohibit the suit from being brought in the present.
2) Virginia has already been forced to make decisions regarding insurance exchanges under the act, as well as changes to Medicaid. One of those decisions made the commonwealth forego more than $100 million in federal money.

Federal Government's Claim:  Virginia's suit is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act.
Virginia's Response:  The act does not apply to states under these circumstances, because Virginia's action falls within an exception to the act that has been recognized by the Supreme Court.

Federal Government's Claim:  The government has the power under the Constitution's Commerce Clause to mandate the purchase of individual health insurance.
Virginia's Response: 
1) The federal government's argument is contrary to the text of the Constitution.
2) The federal government's argument is contrary to the meaning of the words of the Commerce Clause as understood by the Founders.
3) The federal government's argument is contrary to the historical context of the nation's founding. When Great Britain instituted a tax on tea, the colonists' response was to boycott and to not buy tea. Parliament had the power to regulate commerce, but even it did not attempt to force colonists to buy the taxed product.
4) The federal government's argument is contrary to the traditional uses of the Commerce Clause. The clause has always been used to regulate economic activity; never inactivity.
5) The federal government's argument is contrary to the precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has set outer limits to the reaches of the Commerce Clause, including in cases such as Lopez and Morrison, saying that the clause must have principled limits, otherwise the federal government essentially would have unlimited power, rather than the limited powers enumerated in the Constitution.

Federal Government's Claim:  Even if refusing to buy insurance is not commerce, the government can still force people to buy health insurance using the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause.
Virginia's Response: 
1) Since 1819, the Supreme Court has held that any use of the Necessary and Proper Clause must be consistent with both "the letter and spirit" of the Constitution. Any interpretation that would destroy the federal form of government (where federal power is limited only to those powers enumerated in the Constitution, with remaining powers reserved to the states and the people) is not allowed under that standard.
2) In May, the Supreme Court decided Comstock.
The Court adopted a historical approach to the use of the Necessary and Proper Clause. Because the mandate is utterly unprecedented, it is unlikely to be upheld under a historical approach.

Federal Government's Claim:  Even if the government cannot win using the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause arguments, the federal health insurance mandate can be justified under the government's taxing authority.
Virginia's Response:
1) The penalty for not buying insurance is not a tax. Congress called it a "penalty" and claimed authority to act only under the Commerce Clause. To argue otherwise now ignores what Congress actually did.
2) A penalty for inaction is not a tax of any kid known to the Constitution, when judged historically.

Reality Check

"I love numbers, and today the number from the Congressional Budget Office that this health insurance reform legislation will save $138 billion in the first 10 years and $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years speaks very eloquently to the deficit reduction that is in our package."
-- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, March 18, 2010


The Reality: On May 11, 2010, the CBO reported that the health care reform legislation that was enacted in March could cost another $115 billion over the next 10 years in federal health care spending. The new estimates include up to $20 billion to enable federal agencies to implement the law, $34 billion for community health centers, and $39 billion for American Indian health care.

Unconstitutional Mandate

Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli released the following Op-Ed, which ran on National Review Online last week:

Unconstitutional Mandate
Virginia's Obamacare lawsuit is about more than just health care.

There are very good reasons that the federal government has never, in the last 221 years, used the Commerce Clause of the Constitution as a vehicle for requiring citizens to purchase goods or services from other citizens.

The first is textual. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides that "the Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several States." Although there have been disputes about just how far this should reach into commerce that is entirely intrastate, until now, it has been recognized that this constitutional provision deals with regulation of commerce - that is, with the use of law to impose reason and order on the voluntary commercial actions of citizens, as well as on activities that substantially affect commerce. An individual mandate to purchase health insurance is not regulation in that sense.

Another good reason this has not been done before is that it turns the Commerce Clause into an alternative, off-books funding mechanism. According to the "findings" section of the law itself, the mandate achieves economies of scale, but in reality, it achieves income redistribution. The law caps the amount that insurance companies can charge based on age, and forbids them to exclude those with pre-existing conditions. As such, the young and healthy people the law forces to buy insurance are overcharged for the purpose of subsidizing the old and those with pre-existing conditions.

One of the drafters of the health-care legislation acknowledged that it uses the Commerce Clause to redistribute income. Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, admitted during the Senate reconciliation debate, "This is also an income shift. . . . This legislation will have the effect of addressing . . . mal-distribution of income in America."

Congress could have achieved this in an aboveboard fashion by establishing a special insurance fund for persons with pre-existing conditions, to be funded with general tax revenues, but it lacked the political will to do so. The Sixteenth Amendment authorizes the progressive income tax. It, the taxing powers, and the spending power are the traditional sources of the federal government's authority to create social-welfare programs such as Medicaid. The use of a purchasing mandate instead crosses an important constitutional line.

Do most Americans think Congress has the power to force them to buy products from private companies, and to mandate that those products be overpriced for the purpose of income redistribution? Do most Americans think Congress should have this power? Clearly, the authority is not something that should be conceded until after careful consideration by the Supreme Court.

Fortunately, Virginia's governor and legislature acted decisively - and in a bipartisan fashion - to adopt Virginia's new anti-mandate law, the Health Care Freedom Act. The law states that in Virginia, citizens cannot be compelled to purchase health insurance against their will. It is in direct conflict with the federal health-care bill, and we have filed a lawsuit to defend it.

(This conflict can be expeditiously heard in a federal court in Virginia, which is why Virginia has not joined the other states suing in Florida. We fully support their lawsuit, and we have offered assistance in the form of shared research and an amicus brief to the Florida court on their behalf. We welcome the same from them.)

Virginia's challenge to the health-care bill is not just about buying insurance. It is about the limits of the power of the federal government and its relationship to citizens. Ultimately, it is about liberty itself.

- Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, Attorney General of Virginia

Please Support Virginia AG Cuccinelli's Efforts!

Here is the latest from Virginia AG Cuccinelli...

Fellow Americans,

On Tuesday, March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law a healthcare bill of historic proportions. That bill includes an individual mandate on Americans that declares that they must buy health insurance or face penalties. This overreaches the authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause and is therefore unconstitutional.

Buying health insurance can be said to be an act in commerce. However, if someone doesn't buy insurance, they are by definition not engaging in commerce. This legislation greatly oversteps the Commerce Clause.

Please join in Virginia's fight to overturn the individual mandate on health insurance. I ask that you indicate your support by signing the petition below. Please also forward this to your friends.

Sincerely,
Ken Cuccinelli
Attorney General of Virginia

Click here to read and sign the petition

Petition in Support of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's Suit
to Overturn the Health Care Individual Mandate

WHEREAS, the health care bill recently passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama includes a mandate requiring Americans to purchase health care insurance, and

WHEREAS, federal officials claim that the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution gives the federal government the authority to force citizens to purchase health care insurance, and

WHEREAS, by definition, a person who refuses to purchase is NOT engaging in interstate commerce, and

WHEREAS, a citizen who is not engaging in commerce may not be compelled to engage in commerce by the federal government, and

WHEREAS, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may not regulate non-commercial activities using the commerce clause, and

WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia has passed a law protecting Virginia's citizens from this unconstitutional mandate,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the undersigned citizens of the United States support the lawsuit brought by the Commonwealth of Virginia to declare the health care individual mandate unconstitutional.

Click here to read and sign the petition

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) Details CBO's Score of the Health Care Reform Bill

Last night, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) called in on The Mark Levin Show last night to brief Mark and his listeners on what's going on in Congress on the health care reform bill.  This is "must listen" radio.  Ryan does a fantastic job of detailing, in simple terms, the games being played by the Left on this bill.  Here is the link to the Ryan interview:

http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=1738089&spid=32364

President Obama Coming to Fairfax, Va. (George Mason University) March 19 to Discuss Health Care Reform

Attention all Northern Virginia Conservatives!

President Obama will be coming to George Mason University's Patriot Center in Fairfax on Friday, March 19 to discuss the health care reform.  This is an obvious attempt to pursuade Rep. Gerry Connolly in his home district to move from "undecided" to "yes".  Connolly is make a last-ditch attempt to distance himself from both Obama and the health care issue, but it's not working.  He knows he's in a no-win situation.  If he votes "yes", he is in serious jeopardy of becoming a one-term member; if he votes "no", he'll be in Pelosi and Obama's doghouse and could jeopardize the bill's passage.

The event at the Patriot Center is first-come in terms of attendance.  The more Conservatives in attendance and/or rallying outside the facility, the better we can make our position clear to attendees and the media.

Here is a link regarding the event: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=367623438109&ref=mf

Paul Ryan: Hiding Spending Doesn't Reduce Spending

Back in town again and will start posting...

I definitely wanted to get Paul Ryan's attack on Obama's health care reform on the site. This is from last week's "bipartisan" health care summit in Washington. For the record, Obama spoke more than twice as long as all Republicans added together.

Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli: Founders would cheer Virginia’s anti-Obamacare bill

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli continues to lead the charge against the mandatory imposition of ObamaCare on Virginians.  God bless him!  Recently, the RC Blog included Cuccinelli's appearance on Fox Business Network's "Cavuto Show" on this same issue.  He should stand as a shining example for all Attorneys General throughout the nation to have the courage to go after the Socialist tactic of mandatory health care for Americans.

Here is an Op-Ed in Wednesday's Washington Examiner from General Cuccinelli:

February 10, 2010 Virginia is moving towards passing legislation that would make it unlawful to implement federal legislation to compel Virginia residents to buy health insurance, a/k/a, Obamacare. On Monday, February 1st, the Democratic-controlled state senate of Virginia passed a bill that would block the implementation of the individual mandate of Obamacare.

Some have argued that, constitutionally, federal legislation compelling Virginians to buy health insurance is no different than any other economic regulation imposed by Congress. That kind of “that’s the way we’ve always done it” thinking is not only incorrect constitutionally, but may help explain why reckless spending at the federal level has pushed America to the verge of bankruptcy.

It reminds me of an exchange between a reporter and one of the several Democratic committee chairmen in the House that are addressing the health care bill: The reporter asked the chairman “where in the Constitution does it say the federal government can mandate citizens to buy health insurance?”

The chairman snapped back: “Where does it say we can’t?!”

Sadly, like many of his cohorts, this chairman was blissfully unaware that if the Constitution doesn’t say the federal government can do something, then it can’t do it. And nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the authority to mandate citizens to purchase anything.

The bigger-government approach to the healthcare issue is clear cause to reexamine some fundamentals of how our government should operate. Our system of government is a republic. Before the Revolution, the sovereign was England. Following the Revolution, the power of the sovereign devolved to the people of the states, as explicitly noted in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself.

The states, as sovereign entities, granted express and limited powers to the federal government by way of the United States Constitution. To prevent one branch of the federal government from exceeding its express and limited powers, we have a “horizontal” system of checks and balances – the three branches of the federal government.

However, we also have a “vertical” system of checks and balances between the states and the federal government. This vertical system of checks and balances has been used too infrequently, but Virginia is now using it to declare our own law regarding healthcare freedom as a means to counteract an unconstitutional law (if it passes) at the federal level. This would create a conflict of laws.

But as James Madison wrote in Federalist 51, freedom is best protected when political ambition counteracts political ambition. Virginia is protecting the freedom of its citizens by “checking” the federal leviathan on the matter of healthcare.

The courts would need to resolve the coming conflict. Ultimately, however, the voters will decide: do federal politicians who may vote for Obamacare stand with the people and the Constitution? Virginians are saying “no” on a bi-partisan basis.

Too many people in Washington forget they get their authority – and I’ll add, their only authority – by a grant of express and enumerated powers from the sovereign states. But also as Madison wrote, that power “should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people.”

Our Virginia legislation, however, is important for other reasons. It may prove to be a model for other states to combat the reckless, out-of-touch ways of Washington. It has long been apparent that people are frustrated with government, but many people didn’t think they could do something about controlling such a behemoth.

Now people are figuring out the way to stop abuses of power which seem to be crippling our economy and eating away our liberty, is by using the Constitution against those who violate it. Leadership in this approach must come from the states.

It is the states that were expected to control the federal government, that’s why Madison said that the “different governments will control each other” in Federalist 51. The “different governments” are the state and federal governments. It’s part of our constitutional role as a state.

As attorney general for Virginia, I’m with Madison. The people of Virginia have every reason to expect that when the government violates the law – especially the supreme law of the land, the Constitution – there will be someone to protect them every bit as much as they are protected against violations of law by ordinary criminals.

For too long, the federal government has operated as if it granted authority and freedoms to people and the states. It’s time to start returning this system to its proper balance. The system has broken down, and that has real consequences for jobs, the economy, our security and our freedom.

Virginia’s history is steeped in protecting liberty – the foundation of our nation’s greatness. Once again, Virginia is taking the lead in protecting our citizens’ sacred liberty.

A Deathblow to Obamacare

From today's Heritage Foundation "Morning Bell" e-mail...

A report released Friday by the non-partisan and independent Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency in charge of running Medicare and Medicaid, blows the lid off of every one of Obama’s claims. All of the following quotes are from the report itself:

Health Care Costs Increase: “In aggregate, we estimate that for calendar years 2010 through 2019 [national health expenditures (NHE)] would increase by $289 billion, or 0.8 percent, over the updates baseline projection that was released on June 29, 2009.” In other words, Obamacare bends the cost curve up, not down.

Millions Lose Existing Private Coverage: “However, a number of workers who currently have employer coverage would likely become enrolled in the expanded Medicaid program or receive subsidized coverage through the Exchange. For example, some smaller employers would be inclined to terminate their existing coverage, and companies with low average salaries might find it to their - and their employees’ - advantage to end their plans … We estimate that such actions would collectively reduce the number of people with employer-sponsored health coverage by about 12 million.” In other words, Obamacare will cause millions of Americans to lose their existing private coverage.

Millions Pay Fines Yet Remain Uncovered: “18 million are estimated to choose not to be insured and to pay the penalty associated with the individual mandate. For the most part, these would be individuals with relatively low health care expenses for whom the individual or family insurance premium would be significantly in excess of the penalty and their anticipated health benefit value.” In other words, 18 million Americans will either face jail time or be forced to pay a new tax they will receive no benefit from.

Millions Lose Medicare Advantage: “Section 1161 of Division B of H.R. 3962 would set Medicare Advantage capitation benchmarks … We estimate that in 2014 when the MA provisions would be fully phased in, enrollment in MA plans would decreased by 64 percent (from its projected level of 13.2 million under current law to 4.7 million under the proposal).” In other words, 8.5 million seniors who currently get such services as coordinated care for chronic conditions, routine eye and hearing examinations, and preventive-care services would lose their existing private coverage.

Millions Placed on Welfare: “Of the additional 34 million who are estimated to be insured in 2019 as a result of H.R. 3962, about three-fifths (21 million) would receive Medicaid coverage due to the expansion of eligibility to those adults under 150 percent of the FPL.” In other words, more than half the people who gain health insurance will receive it through the welfare program Medicaid.

Seniors Access to Care Jeopardized: “H.R. 3962 would introduce permanent annual productivity adjustments to price updates for institutional providers… Over time, a sustained reduction in payment updates, based on productivity expectations that are difficult to attain, would cause Medicare payment rates to grow more slowly than and in a way that was unrelated to, the providers’ costs of furnishing services to beneficiaries. Thus, providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries).” In other words, the Medicare cuts in the House bill are so out of touch with reality that hospitals currently serving Medicare patients might be forced to stop doing so. Thus making it much more difficult for seniors to get health care.

Poor’s Access Problems Exacerbated: “In practice, supply constraints might interfere with providing the services by the additional 34 million insured persons. …providers might tend to accept more patients who have private insurance (with relatively attractive payment rates) and fewer Medicaid patients, exacerbating existing access problems for the latter group.” In other words, those 21 million people who are gaining health insurance through Medicaid are going to have a very tough time finding a doctor who will treat them.

Reacting in part to Friday’s CMS report, Robert J. Samuelson writes in today’s Washington Post:

The disconnect between what President Obama says and what he’s doing is so glaring that most people could not abide it. The president, his advisers and allies have no trouble. But reconciling blatantly contradictory objectives requires them to engage in willful self-deception, public dishonesty, or both.

There is a reason why as more Americans learn about Obamacare, the less popular it gets.

American College of Surgeons Issues Statement on Erroneous Comments Made by President Obama

Statement from the American College of Surgeons Regarding Recent Comments from President Obama :

CHICAGO--The American College of Surgeons is deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make about the high-quality care provided by surgeons in the United States. When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight.

Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.

Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon's decision to remove a child's tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons make decisions about recommending operations based on what's right for the patient.

We agree with the President that the best thing for patients with diabetes is to manage the disease proactively to avoid the bad consequences that can occur, including blindness, stroke, and amputation. But as is the case for a person who has been treated for cancer and still needs to have a tumor removed, or a person who is in a terrible car crash and needs access to a trauma surgeon, there are times when even a perfectly managed diabetic patient needs a surgeon. The President's remarks are truly alarming and run the risk of damaging the all-important trust between surgeons and their patients.

We assume that the President made these mistakes unintentionally, but we would urge him to have his facts correct before making another inflammatory and incorrect statement about surgeons and surgical care.

Sincerely,

L.D. Britt, M.D., FACS, Chair of the ACS Board of Regents
John Cameron, M.D., FACS, President of the American College of Surgeons
Andrew Warshaw, M.D., FACS, Chair of the ACS Health Policy and Advocacy Group
Christian Shalgian, ACS Director, Division of Advocacy and Health Policy


About the American College of Surgeons

The American College of Surgeons is a scientific and educational organization of surgeons that was founded in 1913 to raise the standards of surgical practice and to improve the care of the surgical patient. The College is dedicated to the ethical and competent practice of surgery. Its achievements have significantly influenced the course of scientific surgery in America and have established it as an important advocate for all surgical patients. The College has more than 76,000 members and is the largest organization of surgeons in the world.

Obama, Heath Care Continue to Fall in the Polls

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 30% of the nation's voters “Strongly Approve” of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-seven percent (37%) “Strongly Disapprove” giving Obama a “Presidential Approval Index” rating of -7 (see trends). Forty-five percent (45%) give the President good or excellent marks for leadership.

New Rasmussen Reports polling shows public support for the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low. Data released yesterday shows that 51% fear the federal government more than private insurance companies. Thirty-two percent (32%) favor a single-payer health care system for the U.S., while 57% are opposed.

The “Presidential Approval Index” is calculated by subtracting the number who “Strongly Disapprove” from the number who “Strongly Approve”. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern.

Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty percent (50%) disapprove.