Breaking: Federal Judge rules against parts of health care law

CNN reports :

Washington (CNN) – A federal judge in Virginia has ruled parts of the sweeping health care reform effort led by President Obama to be unconstitutional. This is the first federal court to strike down the law, contradicting other recent rulings the law was permissible. The key issue of contention was the "individual mandate" requirement that most Americans purchase health insurance by 2014.

This ruling was expected to go against the administration as The Wall Street Journal reports:

The ruling by District Judge Henry E. Hudson is perhaps the most significant so far among a slew of state-based legal challenges to the law, which also faces attack by newly resurgent Republicans in Congress. More than 20 federal lawsuits have been filed against the health overhaul since President Barack Obama signed it in March.

While the cases differ somewhat, they largely rest on the argument that Congress lacks constitutional authority to require most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a fee. The Obama administration counters that three clauses of the Constitution gave Congress the power to put the requirement, known as the individual mandate, in the law as part of regulating how people pay for health care.

 (snip)

Supporters of the law are bracing for defeats in Virginia and in Florida. Judges Hudson and Vinson have both shown sympathy to the plaintiffs' arguments and are GOP appointees.

Two other federal judges, in separate lawsuits in Michigan and Virginia, have already ruled in the administration's favor on the individual-mandate question. Those cases, along with the other federal cases challenging the law, have a narrower base of plaintiffs than the suits brought in Florida and before Judge Hudson in Virginia.

Read the  rest for background on  the Virginia case as  well as the case brought in Florida which is likely to garner another ruling against the law later this week.  This is unlikely to stop the health care law in its tracks but it does open up a path to challenge the law in higher courts.  Stay tuned...

UPDATES

From NRO - Eric Cantor calls on Obama and AG Holder to send the case directly to SCOTUS:

“To ensure an expedited process moving forward, I call on President Obama and Attorney General Holder to join Attorney General Cuccinelli in requesting that this case be sent directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Though I doubt Obama or his JD will support a fast track to the Supreme Court they would be helping to resolve the uncertainty that will surround the law for the next few years if they heeded Cantor's request.  If they are confident of their position why not resolve the constitutionality question ASAP?

Here is a pdf of the ruling:  Ed Morrissey spots the crux of the judges sentiments in this AP report:

Hudson rejected the government’s argument that it has the power under the Constitution to require individuals to buy health insurance, a provision that was set to take effect in 2014.

“Of course, the same reasoning could apply to transportation, housing or nutritional decisions,” Hudson wrote. “This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation” and is unsupported by previous legal cases around the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Tweet

Boehner pledges to stop ObamaCare

Via Townhall and Hot Air

Boehner's game plan:

Well, there’s a lot of tricks up our sleeves in terms of how we can dent this, kick it, slow it down to make sure it never happens. And trust me, I’m going to make sure this healthcare bill never ever, ever is implemented.

In a perfect world Obama would have taken the message from Tuesday that was intentionally sent from voters. Scratch that, in a perfect world Obama would have taken Boehner up on his offer to start over before this debacle was made into law: "We told the president down at the Blair House during the seven-hour Obama infomercial that we ought to stop and start over. And we laid out the eight or nine common-sense ideas we had that would bring down the costs of health insurance." The health care system was badly in need of reform.  Had Obama chosen a wiser path and passed something with the support of the Republicans and the country at large, this issue would be resolved.

Obama and the train-wreck Congress we know as the 111th had ants in their pants, they couldn't do the right thing and start over.  Now Obama is acknowledging his law could do with a tweak while Republicans and a wide swathe of voters want to repeal and replace.  Brett Baier wisely points out, "There’s a big distance between tweaking and repealing."  There is also a good deal of uncertainty in between as well.  This is uncertainty the health care industry and the rest of the economy could do without.  Boehner will have his hands full dealing with this president on this and many other issues.  Fortunately, he doesn't seem to be inclined to shy away from the task:







Tweet

The Sebelius Thugocracy: "They're more subtle than this in Caracas".

In other administrations you would expect news like this to turn up in a parking garage somewhere delivered by an anonymous "Deep Throat." Not so in the Obama administration, where thugocracy reigns supreme; we find this news in the Wall Street Journal instead:

'As a consequence of us getting 30 million additional people health care, at the margins that's going to increase our costs—we knew that," President Obama said at his press conference Friday in response to a question about rising health spending.

That wasn't how he sold the plan, but, anyway, that's a truism. Here's another: The White House was always going to blame insurance companies for any cost increases, even when its own policies cause them.

Witness Kathleen Sebelius's Thursday letter to America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group—a thuggish message even by her standards. The Health and Human Services secretary wrote that some insurers have been attributing part of their 2011 premium increases to ObamaCare and warned that "there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases."

Zero tolerance for expressing an opinion, or offering an explanation to policyholders? They're more subtle than this in Caracas.

What Ms. Sebelius really means is that the government will prohibit insurers from doing business if reality is not politically convenient for Democrats. ObamaCare includes a slew of mandated benefits for next year, such as allowing children to remain on their parents' plans until age 26 and "free" preventative care (i.e., no direct out-of-pocket cost sharing for consumers). The tone of Ms. Sebelius's letter suggests that she doesn't understand that money is exchanged for goods and services, and that if Congress mandates new benefits, premiums will rise.

No wonder the economy is in the crapper with this group of thugs threatening business at every turn.  As if the Obama health care agenda hasn't gone out of its' way to make life miserable for insurers already; insurers are now prevented from explaining the consequences of this outrageous law to their customers.  I guess they should write a letter explaining they are all money grubbing whores hoping to profit off the misery of the American people in justification for rate increases necessitated by the health care law.

Shhh, don't look now but the 1099 insurrection is underway:

You might not have seen it reported, but the Senate will vote this morning on whether to repeal part of ObamaCare that it passed only months ago. The White House is opposed, but this fight is likely to be the first of many as Americans discover—as Nancy Pelosi once famously predicted—what's in the bill.

The Senate will vote on amendments to the White House small business bill that would rescind an ObamaCare mandate that companies track and submit to the IRS all business-to-business transactions over $600 annually. Democrats tucked the 1099 reporting footnote into the bill to raise an estimated $17.1 billion, part of the effort to claim that ObamaCare reduces the deficit by $100 billion or so.

Much like the rest of the miraculous deficit reducing powers of the health care law, the onerous provision requiring business to file truckloads of 1099's would produce the $17.1 billion Dems claimed only in a mythical beltway fantasy land.  Instead it will bury business and the IRS in paperwork and increased costs.

The provision is such a failure that even the White House is quietly backing its removal from their grotesque law.  They're not backing the repeal of the provision, however, for fear that would set repeal fever in motion:

Most Democrats now claim they were blindsided and didn't understand the implications of the 1099 provision—which is typical of the slapdash, destructive way the bill was written and passed. As the critics claimed, most Members had no idea what they were voting on. Some 239 House Democrats voted to dump the 1099 provision in August, and the repeal would have passed except Speaker Pelosi rigged the vote procedurally so it needed a two-thirds majority. She thus gave Democrats the cover of a repeal vote without actually repealing it.

In the Senate today, Nebraska Republican Mike Johanns will offer his amendment to scrap the new 1099 rules altogether. But the White House is opposing this because it fears it would set a precedent for repealing the larger health bill. Over the weekend the Treasury Department pronounced the Johanns amendment "not acceptable in its current form."

Yesterday the White House endorsed a competing proposal from Florida Democrat Bill Nelson that would increase the 1099 threshold to $5,000 and exempt businesses with fewer than 25 workers. Yet this is little more than a rearguard action in favor of the status quo; the Nelson amendment leaves the basic architecture unchanged while making the problem more complex.

Businesses would still have to track all purchases, not knowing in advance which contractors will exceed $5,000 at the end of the year. It also creates a marginal barrier to job creation—for a smaller firm, hiring a 26th employee would be extremely costly. The Nelson amendment also includes new taxes on domestic oil production, as every Democratic bill now seems to do.

If this weren't all so dire, it would almost be comical the lengths this administration will go to throw barriers onto business for job creation.  No doubt some administration official will take it upon themselves to pen a letter to business threatening them to keep quiet about why they have zero incentive to hire new people.  Never fear America, we have the new improved empathetic Obama to "stand in the hot sun" with us - in unemployment lines presumably - as he "feels our pain."

UPDATE:  Wyblog reports Senate Dems refuse to repeal the 1099 reporting requirement:

The Barack Obama Death to Small Business Tax Reporting Act of 2010 will stand.

Senate Democrats successfully defeated an amendment offered by Senator Mike Johanns (R-Neb) that would have repealed an Obamacare provision which requires all businesses to file Form 1099 with the IRS for every vendor that sells them more than $600 in goods.

Death to small business seems to be their middle name.

More on this at Memeorandum

Voters Still Hate the Health Care Law Democrats Crammed Down their Throats

For the second week in a row, Rasmussen Reports shows support for the repeal of ObamaCare at 58% of likely voters. This report was taken after the White House began yet another public relations appeal to sell the plan to voters.  Do they seriously think that sales pitch number 5784 will do the trick?

The more we find out about the bill Democrats rammed through Congress, the less we like it. Even the cheerleaders at The New York Times are no longer able to deny the harsh reality that the "sweeping promises" of ObamaCare can not be kept:

In some respects, the rules appear to fall short of the sweeping commitments President Obama made while trying to reassure the public in the fight over health legislation.

In issuing the rules, the administration said this was just one goal of the legislation, allowing people to “keep their current coverage if they like it.” It acknowledged that some people, especially those who work at smaller businesses, might face significant changes in the terms of their coverage, and it said they should be able to “reap the benefits of additional consumer protections.”

Oh so we may not actually get to keep our current plan if we like it after all.  Who knew?  Presuming the "benefits of additional consumer protections" are not enough to finally convince us to love the law, Democrats appear poised to "reap the benefits" come November.

Related: Make of This What You Will
More at Memeorandum

New York Times just noticed insurance regulations failing in New York

Via Memeorandum

Now they tell us, The New York Times finally gets around to reporting on the effects of insurance industry regulations in the state of New York that had some unintended consequences we are likely to see with ObamaCare as well:

New York’s insurance system has been a working laboratory for the core provision of the new federal health care law — insurance even for those who are already sick and facing huge medical bills — and an expensive lesson in unplanned consequences. Premiums for individual and small group policies have risen so high that state officials and patients’ advocates say that New York’s extensive insurance safety net for people like Ms. Welles is falling apart.

The problem stems in part from the state’s high medical costs and in part from its stringent requirements for insurance companies in the individual and small group market. In 1993, motivated by stories of suffering AIDS patients, the state became one of the first to require insurers to extend individual or small group coverage to anyone with pre-existing illnesses.

New York also became one of the few states that require insurers within each region of the state to charge the same rates for the same benefits, regardless of whether people are old or young, male or female, smokers or nonsmokers, high risk or low risk.

Healthy people, in effect, began to subsidize people who needed more health care. The healthier customers soon discovered that the high premiums were not worth it and dropped out of the plans. The pool of insured people shrank to the point where many of them had high health care needs. Without healthier people to spread the risk, their premiums skyrocketed, a phenomenon known in the trade as the “adverse selection death spiral.”

The federal mandate, that some Democrats argue doesn't even exist, is intended to offset the "death spiral." With penalties ranging from $695 for individuals and $2085 for families, there is little incentive to purchase the insurance especially at much higher prices necessary to offset the high risk pool insurers are required to cover.  If most purchase insurance there is a theoretical potential for prices to come down but this has not been shown to be true in Massachusetts.  Let's be honest though, no one made a better case against mandates than the candidate Barack Obama:

Now, under any mandate, you are going to have problems with people who don't end up having health coverage. Massachusetts right now embarked on an experiment where they mandated coverage.

And, by the way, I want to congratulate Governor Schwarzenegger and the speaker and others who have been trying to do this in California, but I know that those who have looked at it understand, you can mandate it, but there's still going to be people who can't afford it. And if they cannot afford it, then the question is, what are you going to do about it? 

Obama looked at mandates and campaigned against them.  Knowing full well mandates create larger problems, Obama orchestrated this massive health care legislation against the will of the American people.  Why?  It doesn't take much to figure out the woman featured in the Times article, April Welles, will be the prototype for the next round of Democratic sob stories offered as proof the only answer to the problem is single payer:

She was lucky to live in New York, one of the first states to require insurance companies to offer comprehensive coverage to all people regardless of pre-existing conditions. But Ms. Welles, 58, also pays dearly: Her premium is $17,876 a year.

“That’s a lot of groceries,” she said.

Is there anyone who can't hear the stump speeches being written almost as soon as ObamaCare starts to fail?   Insurers who would charge Ms. Welles $17,876 for insurance will be held up as villains despite the fact the legislation all but guarantee Ms. Welles' rates would be exorbitant.  Let's be honest, we are not talking about insurance anymore for Ms. Welles.  She would be denied fire insurance if she were purchasing a plan when her house was on fire.  Republicans need to repeal and replace ObamaCare with something that truly deals with costs.  Our country can't afford the promises made under Social Security and Medicare.  It won't be long before the politicians can no longer hide the fact our country is on fire and there are no insurers left to blame.

Signs of the Times

Busy day today but I rounded up a few items of interest. First off, couldn't pass up this Michael Ramirez cartoon. He is spot on as always.

Via Memeorandum   Too bad I don't need a urologist:

Cassell, who has practiced medicine in GOP-dominated Lake County since 1988, said he doesn't quiz his patients about their politics, but he also won't hide his disdain for the bill Obama signed and the lawmakers who passed it.

In his waiting room, Cassell also has provided his patients with photocopies of a health-care timeline produced by Republican leaders that outlines "major provisions" in the health-care package. The doctor put a sign above the stack of copies that reads: "This is what the morons in Washington have done to your health care. Take one, read it and vote out anyone who voted for it."

Would the Founding Fathers like ObamaCare? Dan Henninger has a great article in the WSJ and elaborates on the overreach by Democrats in the video below:

Lies, Damn Lies and Health Care

Everything about this health care legislation seems like a sham. When Obama made his plaintive plea number 35 for his health care plan he was brazen enough to trot out more people in white coats to back him up. It seemed more like a skit for Saturday Night Live than the President making a case to the American people his legislation is important or necessary. It was a joke, and this picture from Drudge captures the absurdity completely.

Peggy Noonan, who is fresh off the hope and change bandwagon, wrote an excellent article on the disaster that is health care which is quickly becoming a portrait of a disastrous president.  She notes Obama's growing credibility gap:

All this contributes to a second problem, which is a growing credibility gap. In his speech Wednesday, demanding an "up or down" vote, the president seemed convinced and committed—but nothing he said sounded true. His bill will "bring down the cost of health care for millions," it is "fully paid for," it will lower the long term deficit by a trillion dollars.

Does anyone believe this? Does anyone who knows the ways of government, the compulsions of Congress, and how history has played out in the past, believe this? Even a little? Rep. Bart Stupak said Thursday that he and several of his fellow Democrats won't vote for the Senate version of the bill because it says right there on page 2,069 that the federal government would directly subsidize abortions. The bill's proponents say this isn't so. It would be a relief to have a president who could weigh in believably and make clear what his own bill says. But he seems to devote more words to obscuring than clarifying.

Clearly Noonan doesn't think the addition of a few people standing by Obama's side give him the credibility he needs to sell his disastrous bill.  Her solution, one she admits is exceedingly unlikely, for Obama to stand with Republicans at they offer a bill together.  Three reasons are offered why this will not happen and all are very true:

 First, they enjoy his discomfort. Second, they believe the bill is not worth saving, that at this point no matter what it contains—and at this point most people can no longer retain in their heads what it contains—it has been fatally tainted by the past year of mistakes and inadequacies.

And the third reason is that the past decade has taught them what a disaster looks like, and they've lost their taste for standing next to one.

Noonan was joined yesterday by Neil Cavuto who added his own comment on the lies and deceptions held out to the public as transparency saying, “You know what I think really turns off voters? Not lying politicians, but lying politicians who insist they’re not lying politicians."  Maybe we've come to expect a lie or two from politicians, sometimes we overlook it.  I would add this to Cavuto's comment, there does seem to be a place reserved in politician hell for those politicians who continue to lie to get their own way when the American people have said as clearly as they can, NO!

New and Improved ObamaCare - The Teeny-Tiny Waterloo or a Slightly Less Stinky Pile of Poo, You Decide

Put on your neck braces  and prepare for the release of ObamaCare version 3.976574.  It's the teeny-tiny version, or if you prefer, the version that stinks slightly less than the others.  Still, it is expected to be, "'big enough' to put the country on a 'path' toward health care reform."  That may make it big enough to still do plenty of damage if there is, in fact, a new teenie-tiny version in the works.  

The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn seems to have a report contradicting news a smaller version will be introduced:

I checked with Pelosi's office, though, and that interpretation seems to be wrong. Via e-mail, spokesperson Brendan Daly says

The Speaker was referring to the compromise between the House and the Senate that the President unveiled last week--not a new smaller bill. As she has said repeatedly, she is committed to passing comprehensive health insurance reform.

This is consistent with the message Pelosi and her lieutenants sent over the weekend in a series of television interviews.

If somebody is going to back away from comprehensive reform, it won't be Pelosi.

Well, shame on us for interpreting Pelosi's statement to mean a new smaller version would be released.  I suppose Major Garrett at Fox News got this statement all wrong then:

"In a matter of days, we will have a proposal," Pelosi said, pointing to Obama's forthcoming bill. "It will be a much smaller proposal than we had in the House bill, because that's where we can gain consensus. But it will be big enough to put us on a path of affordable, quality health care for all Americans that holds insurance companies accountable."

Cutting through the semantics and political doublespeak, it seems we are about to see a version of ObamaCare that incorporates two ideas presented by Republicans at the health care summit on Thursday.   The plan is likely to include some versions of medical malpractice reform and an allowance for insurers to sell across state lines.    This isn't likely to make for a smaller bill, but in Nancy Pelosi's world this will make it bipartisan even if it fails to win a single Republican vote.  Allahpundit sums this up perfectly:

And if it has Republican ideas, why shouldn’t it be rammed through with reconciliation, right? Voila — Plan C, the first “bipartisan” bill in history aimed at a party-line vote.

Perhaps they cut 50 pages somewhere and this constitutes "smaller" in Democratic spin.

ObamaCare 2.0 Kicks Off Kabuki Week for Health Care

The wonders of wonders of Obamacare 2.0 were revealed today in advance of the Kabuki health care summit on the 25th. I am still poring over the changes that enable the White House list these selling points to promote the latest version of government health care:

* It makes insurance more affordable by providing the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history, reducing premium costs for tens of millions of families and small business owners who are priced out of coverage today. This helps over 31 million Americans afford health care who do not get it today – and makes coverage more affordable for many more.
* It sets up a new competitive health insurance market giving tens of millions of Americans the exact same insurance choices that members of Congress will have.
* It brings greater accountability to health care by laying out commonsense rules of the road to keep premiums down and prevent insurance industry abuses and denial of care.
* It will end discrimination against Americans with pre-existing conditions.
* It puts our budget and economy on a more stable path by reducing the deficit by $100 billion over the next ten years – and about $1 trillion over the second decade – by cutting government overspending and reining in waste, fraud and abuse.

Michael Cannon describes this roll out as "Meet the New Plan, Same as the Old Plan." His caveat, the regulation board to control health insurance costs makes it even more bureaucratic. Philip Klein tweets almost everything about the bill will make ObamaCare more costly than the Senate bill.

Marc Ambinder notes the "new" bill could end up benefiting either party depending on whether or not the public perceives the bill as something new:

The way forward: either rank-and-file Democrats accept this bill -- Obama's bill -- or they don't.  Republicans could suddenly discover an upside in supporting it, which is doubtful, but if they could also reduce the number of procedural delays to help the Democrats speed its passage. If not, we might be faced with the spectacle of Republicans trying to drag the votes out through the midterms. This could benefit either party; it depends on whether Americans view this bill, which is basically a product of the bills they don't like, as something new. The reason why they might do this is because they never really opposed the provisions in the bills or the goals of the bills; it was the process that alienated them so profoundly, making health care in 2009 unlovable.  

 Daily KOS among others were treated to an early morning conference call to enlist support of the left leaning media to sell the "new" bill. Expect a full court press to sell this bill, they're desperate.  The White House strategy appears to rest, in part, on the continued vilification of health insurers. They have been pouncing on the rate hikes of one insurer to make this case.  Ambinder notes Democrats hope to put Republicans in a politically untenable position of having to justify opposing regulation of rate hikes by the insurers.

 Ambinder's commentary smacks at the White House for "governing through the New York Times," suggesting the "centerpiece" of the legislation was revealed to the Times specifically to convince the public to grab their pitchforks and stick it to insurers by supporting Obama's bill.  Don't expect the White House to be honest enough to admit that many states already have the power to regulate premiums.

ObamaCare Hammered in Public Opinion

Taegan Goddard's Political Wire is running with a finding in the latest Quinnipiac opinion poll showing Congressional Republicans at their lowest grades since Obama's election on the following points:

• Voters disapprove 64 - 25 percent of the way Republicans in Congress are doing their job, with 42 percent of Republican voters disapproving;

• Only 29 percent think Republicans on Capitol Hill are acting in good faith;

• Voters trust Obama more than Republicans 47 - 31 percent to handle health care;

• Voters 53 - 25 percent have an unfavorable opinion of the Republican Party. 
  

First, let us acknowledge this poll samples registered voters which would produce results that favor Democrats more than a poll that samples likely voters though it skews results less than a sample of adults.  That said, the most glaring problem with this poll is the questioning such as we see here:

15. Who do you trust to do a better job handling health care - President Obama or the Republicans in Congress?

No such question is asked comparing Congressional Democrats to Obama's handling of health care.  As such question 15 can only lead to an odious comparison between Obama and Congressional Republicans.  Far more revealing however, clear majorities of Republicans and Independents do not see Democrats making a good faith effort to cooperate with Republicans as we see in the following response:

21. Do you think Obama and the Democrats in Congress are, or are not, making a good faith effort to cooperate with the Republicans on health care reform?

Tot                         Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    His



Yes/Making effort    41%    18%    69%    34%    38%    45%    36%    67%    55%
No/Not mkg effort    46     73     16     53     53     39     52     12     34

Those who oppose the Democrats reform do so because it is believed it will expand government and increase deficits.   This is the real bad news for Congressional Democrats and Obama found in this poll:

On the negative side, voters don't believe 71 - 19 percent that Obama can keep his promise that health insurance reform will not add to the federal deficit, down from 72 - 21 percent disbelief August 5. Even Democrats believe 50 - 32 percent that health insurance reform will add to the deficit.

That a high percentage of Republicans are dissatisfied with Republicans in Congress reflects much different concerns than those who see Republicans not being cooperative.  The overwhelming fear among Republicans is that they will be too cooperative.   Lest anyone forget however, Democrats control the government right now.  That their proposals for reform have generated strong opposition is a secret the media would like to keep from voters.  There is no easier way to hide that message than focusing on absurd comparisons between Obama and the minority party who don't have the votes to stop ObamaCare unless there is a groundwell of public opposition to the program.  The Quinnipiac buries the notion in the last line of their report:

"They trust Obama more than congressional Republicans on health care. Yet there is no groundswell of support of his health care plan itself."

Political Wire buries it in the headline:

Republicans Hammered in Public Opinion

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air shows how the Pew poll  that samples with a huge partisan split shows Obamacare rejected by a margin of 13 points.  As Ed notes this portion of a poll released earlier in the week but was withheld from release until today. There is no easier way to lie to the public than through statistics.  Nevertheless, the main stream media fall over themselves to invent new and creative ways to hide the sad truth, the public doesn't support this health care reform. 

H/T: Memeorandum

Hey There, You With the Stars in Your Eyes

ObamaCare is bleeding support; Rasmussen shows approval at its lowest level to date.  Because senior citizens are the age group paying closest attention, they are the age group showing greatest intensity of opposition to health care reform.  Guess which  age group is paying the least attention and yet shows strongest support for ObamaCare?  If you clicked on the links you already know the answer, 18-29 year olds.  Unfortunately for young adults, they are also the group most likely to bear the greatest costs of Obama's health care reform and ostensibly Obamanomics in general.

Let's start with how health care reform hurts today's young adults.  In a Wall Street Journal op-ed authors Hennessey, Leavitt, and Hubbard suggest we "have an honest debate before we transfer more money from the young to the old."  Making the case the current health reform is a redistribution of income from the young to the old, the authors show the individual mandate will result in a 25 year old paying the same premiums as a 55 year old:

Thus a healthy 25-year-old and a 55-year-old with cancer would pay nearly the same premium for a health policy. Mr. Obama and his allies emphasize the benefits for the 55-year old. But the 25-year-old, who may also have a lower income, would pay significantly more than needed to cover his expected costs.

Indeed, Hennessey made this point in his initial evaluation of the Baucus Bill:

All those 20-something staff assistants will be subsidizing their 50-something bosses.

Literally, the only way to insure that no one can be denied coverage because of age or pre-existing conditions is to mandate the younger and healthier purchase health care.  Otherwise, how long would it take for the young to decide they will put-off getting health care coverage until they are older and sicker knowing they can't be denied care and coverage?  To insure this age group participate, the Baucus Bill will carry fines that must be paid at the risk of $25,000 and/or jail time.  Surely, the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats are relieved this age group is the least likely to be paying attention.

Hennessey et al., also suggest the mandate will have the effect of raising premiums for the vast majority of Americans.  Increased premiums will continue to stagnate or decrease wages over time for everyone though they may hurt the young the most.  Ed Morrissey at Hot Air synthesizes two recent articles from The New York Times and The New York Post to show Democratic economic policies have resulted the lowest level of entry-level job openings while unemployment among young Americans has reached its' highest level since World War II.   From the Post:

"It's an extremely dire situation in the short run," said Heidi Shierholz, an economist with the Washington-based Economic Policy Institute. "This group won't do as well as their parents unless the jobs situation changes."

The consequences of this deep recession have both short term and long term effects for the young according to a study cited in the Post article:

A study from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, a government database, said the damage to a new career by a recession can last 15 years. And if young Americans are not working and becoming productive members of society, they are less likely to make major purchases -- from cars to homes -- thus putting the US economy further behind the eight ball.

While it may take years to offset the damage to the new careers, those entering the job market will be paying increased premiums to insure their aging bosses, if they are fortunate enough to gain employment in today's bleak job market.  Furthermore, The trillion dollar health care reform maintains the appearance of deficit neutrality largely by shifting costs  to the states that are already facing budget busting deficits according to a WSJ op-ed on the "Mad Max Mandate."  Today's young adults will surely face higher state taxes and higher insurance premiums to fund a health care reform that will benefit everyone but them. 

As Winston Churchill once said, "A liberal is a man with both feet planted firmly in the air."  Though it is often considered a luxury of idealistic youth to embrace liberal policy with feet in the air and stars in their eyes, this luxury is one today's young can ill afford.  It's time for a vat of Espresso Macchiato from one of the giants of capitalism Starbucks to shake the stars from the eyes of today's young voters;  it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

H/T: Memeorandum and Hot Air

SEND BARACK OBAMA A MESSAGE

CBS News reports a slightly different version of the ad pictured above is currently running on Facebook. The ad is scheduled to target 800,000 Sarah Palin supporters. Americans United For Change is sponsoring the ad. Maybe they should concentrate on the beam in the eye of their leader who repeats the following distortions daily:

Lie One: No one will be compelled to buy coverage.

Lie Two: No new taxes on employer benefits.

Lie Three: Government can control rising health care costs better than the private sector.

Lie Four: A public plan won't be a Trojan horse for a single-payer monopoly.

Lie Five: Patients don't have to fear rationing.

Lie Six: You can keep your doctor

Lie Seven: You can keep your current health care plan.

Lie Eight: Taxpayer money will not be used to fund abortions.

Lie Nine: Reform will bend down costs over time.

Lie Ten: Will keep health care decisions between you and your doctor. Pay no attention to that panel who will decide what is worth paying for and what isn't. This could not possibly be confused with a death panel or anything, just like whether you get the pain pill or the operation. You know minor stuff like that. Don't worry. Be happy.

If anyone has any more feel free to write them in the comments. I will update the list as needed.

Political Calculation: Arlen Specter Bashing Hillarycare

H/T:YID With LID: Video of Arlen Specter Bashing State Run Healthcare (Hillarycare)

Pat Toomey is going to be a handful for poor ole Benedict Arlen; watch the following advertisement to see why:



Can we put Toomey in charge of all GOP advertising from now on? Specter betrayed my vote in 2004, why would you trust him to treat yours any other way?

"Harry and Louise" Redux?

Dan Perrin at Redstate has the anti-ObamaCare advertisement found to be most effective in a MediaCurves study: The ad, created by the conservative Christian lobbying group Family Research Council, was found to be most effective by both Democrats and Republicans. Glenn Kesler, president and CEO of HCD Research commented:

"A positive impact score among Democrats suggests that there is some, albeit modest, movement of Democrats away from the pro health care reform camp."

The study showed:
The majority of all parties reported that the FRC anti reform ad was effective, with 64% of Democrats, 81% of Republicans and 71% of Independents indicating that the ad was either extremely effective or somewhat effective. Redstate reports the abortion issue is raised due to the fact that no other issue gathers as many NO votes among Democrats as does the funding of abortions through taxpayer money. This is consistent with my report earlier suggesting the Democrats' support for the abortion issue through the years is playing against them in the health care debate.

The ad is reminiscent of the "Harry and Louise" ads that were effective in bringing down the Cinton health care reform. For those who care to stroll down memory lane, here is one of those ads:



UPDATE: I was reminded in the comments that there is more information available on the study at MediaCurves. I have changed the post to include that link above and here in the update. Please go and read the rest of the details including the emotions experience by both Dems and Republicans when watching the ad.

Bloggers enlisted in Conference Call

Via Huff Po President Obama has enlisted the support of bloggers as part of his "all Obama-all the time" strategy on healthcare. In an invitation only conference call the President explained how he saw the bloggers playing a role in keeping the pressure on to pass healthcare reform legislation:

"I know the blogs are best at debunking myths that can slip through a lot of the traditional media outlets," he said. "And that is why you are going to play such an important role in our success in the weeks to come."

Yes, yes you read that right, he believes the bloggers are best at debunking myths.
Perhaps we should take a stroll down memory lane and revisit the tremendous strength of the blogs in myth debunking. Who can forget the crack reporting at Mudflats with the mysterious Anne Kilkenny charging Palin with book bannning? A fine example of the Palin refuses to fund rape kits because they contain "emergency contraception" myth can be seen at Democratic Underground. From LA Progressive we had an example of Palin's reported "Sambo" racist comment. More from Mudflats, who were "all Palin - all the time," we see an example of the Bristol is Trig's mother scandal that spread like a cold sore at college kegger. A google search reveals pages of headlines such as "Who is the Mother of Trig Paxon Van Palin?" Though Daily KOS seems to have been busy since then, scrubbing their archives of this sad excuse for reporting, a certain famous blogger, Andrew aka "We're all obstetricians now" Sullivan is still investigating this scandal. Still more "debunking" from Mudflats, we had the Palin had an affair with Tod's business partner scandal.

KOS has a few really remarkable myths such as Palin thinks Pledge written by Founding Fathers. My personal favorite from KOS though, has to be the rationale for publishing an obviously photoshopped pic of Palin in a bikini because,

"it communicates a certain kind of truth about the candidate even though it is a fake foto, in the way that fiction often can over non-fiction."

Mmmm yes, who can argue with that logic?

Well, I personally feel the President has placed his faith in the right crew of bloggers to debunk all those nasty myths likely to be spread by the right wingers who just want to kick old ladies and deny anyone who isn't rich medical care. We are mean like that. To set the tone the President trotted out his famous straw man argument,

The status quo is unacceptable... People who would defend doing nothing are defending the indefensible."

That's us, the defenders-of-the-indefensible, the ones who would rather do nothing than, oh say, passing legislation that effects upwards of 15% of the GDP while it fails to correct the problems it is supposed to address. To make sure we don't get away with this dastardly plan, Obama reiterates his threat to ram it through in reconciliation. Good thing he dropped all those Chicago style negotiating techniques when he moved to the White House. For the record though, there are plenty of health care reform proposals put together by the do-nothing crew including Senator DeMint, Paul Ryan, the bipartisan Wyden-Bennet Healthy Americans Act as well as the crucial bipartisan efforts of Baucus and Grassley on the Senate Finance Committee. Keith Hennessey, who has suggested his own reform, also debunks the reconciliation threat here and here, though it is possible Mr. Hennessey underestimates the determination of this administration who believes that some of the above-mentioned bloggers will be valuable in helping to "debunk myths" and spread the truth about the wonders of Obamacare.