Ed Feulner, president of The Heritage
Foundation, writes: President Obama cited The Heritage Foundation’s
research in an attempt to sell his health care package as a “middle of
the road, centrist approach.” We take great exception to this misuse of
our work and abuse of our name. This is but the latest act in a campaign
to sell this big-government program as a moderate law that incorporates
conservative ideas.
Americans should not be fooled. Let’s be very
clear: We oppose this new law because it is a radical new intrusion into
the daily lives of all Americans and a massive takeover of one-sixth of
the U.S. economy. We view the President’s health care law as inimical to
our national interests and offensive to the historic American dedication
to the principle of self-government.
Our research has shown that President Obama’s
health approach is financially unsustainable and will ultimately lead to
health care rationing, a lower quality of care and a greater degree of
dependence on government. We deplore those outcomes and are committed to
making the intellectual case for this law’s repeal.
What part of that does President Obama not understand?
Specifically, President Obama told
NBC’s Today Show host Matt Lauer that a centerpiece of his health
care package, “in terms of the exchange, just being able to pool and
improve the purchasing power of individuals in the insurance market—that
originated from The Heritage Foundation.”
But the President knows full well—or he ought to
learn before he speaks—that the exchanges we and most others support are
very different from those in his package. True exchanges are simply a
market mechanism to enable families to choose their health insurance.
President Obama’s exchanges, by contrast, are a vehicle to introduce
sweeping regulation and federal standardization on health insurance.
Moreover, we completely disagree that President
Obama’s law improves the purchasing power of individuals in the
insurance market. On the contrary, it will create a staggeringly complex
and costly insurance system that will drive up premiums for Americans.
The President’s health care law is only eight days
old, and already it has cost our economy billions of dollars. Late last
week, AT&T alone took a $1 billion charge because of the impact of the
bill, and the consulting firm Towers Watson told the Wall Street Journal
that the total hit this year will reach nearly $14 billion. It is sad,
given the present state of our economy, that the President’s party in
Congress has reacted not by trying to find ways to spare the jobs that
will be lost because of this law. Instead, they are trying to intimidate
companies that take such charges with threats that they will be hauled
in before the Energy and Commerce Committee.
It is also revealing that President Obama is still
struggling to sell the American people on a bill that he and his party
rammed through passage by a narrow margin in the face of bipartisan
opposition. It is a sign of desperation that he, his handlers and the
media echo chamber are reverting to the campaign practice of selling the
President and his policies as centrist, middle of the road and
aisle-crossing. As the country has found out the hard way in the past 15
months, they are none of those things.
The President has made a habit of using
conservative talking points when trying to sell a liberal ideology
because he knows that this is a center-right country that rejects his
agenda when articulated honestly. His supporters have even tried to pin
the blame of the potentially unconstitutional individual mandate on us.
This approach brushes over the details of our research and ignores our
ability to evolve past further developed research.
Thousands of new IRS employees will be hired by
the government to enforce the President’s mandate on the American
people. The President’s health care plan also raises premiums, taxes,
and costs while lowering quality, and expanding Medicaid. These are not
conservative ideas.
And let’s be clear, these are not ideas Heritage
has ever, or would ever, support.
We made every effort over the past year to share
our ideas for better health care reform with the President and members
of both parties in Congress, but were not invited behind the closed
doors. Now, after the bill is signed, it seems the President wishes we
were along for the ride. We were not. We remain fervently opposed to the
President’s partisan plan, and urge its immediate repeal. This is not
common politics, it’s common sense.
Had President Obama limited his bill to centrist
elements, he would have won wide bipartisan support for effective reform
both within Congress and among the American people. He would have won
it, too, at a fraction of the cost of this intolerable, huge and
intrusive legislation. He would not now be facing popular rejection by
the American people. And he would not need to misrepresent Heritage
policies and positions in an attempt to give his radical health plan the
patina of respectability.
Health Care Boondoggle to Cost Arizona
Staggering $11.6 Billion over First 10 Years
March 26, 2010
PHOENIX --
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer issued this statement in response to the passage
last week of the federal health care boondoggle:
“Given the
many questions raised about the fiscal impact of federal health care
reform legislation on Arizona, I asked the Arizona Health Care Cost
Containment System (AHCCCS) to prepare updated cost estimates based on
the changes approved on Sunday by the United States House of
Representatives. I am sharing this information to ensure Arizonans have
accurate information about the impact of this legislation. The full
report can be found at
http://www.azahcccs.gov/reporting/federal/legislation.
“Taking
into account the changes included in the federal legislation, as well as
the recently enacted state budget for FY 2011, the updated analysis
shows that the costs to the State of Arizona of these unprecedented
federal mandates total a staggering $11.6 billion over the next 10
years. Despite claims of “savings” due to increased federal funding,
maintenance of effort requirements obligate Arizona to spend over $1
billion annually to access those increased federal funds.
“Having the
courage to live within our means as a State is critically important to
our children and our families. Their safety and their education are
just two important aspects of their lives that are deeply affected by
the challenging budget decisions we have made. As I have noted in
numerous communication with Arizona’s Congressional delegation, I have
been concerned about the impacts of federal maintenance of effort
requirements on Arizona’s ability to manage through this fiscal crisis.
I urged the delegation to demand removal of such provisions from any
legislation. Unfortunately, the bill as sent to the President included
the provisions that caused me such concern. These provisions have an
immediate impact of creating a shortfall of roughly $400 million in the
FY 2011 budget that was just passed by the Legislature. Any additional
federal funds reportedly available to fill this gap are included in
separate federal legislation that has yet to make its way to the
President’s desk. I have recently asked Arizona’s Congressional
delegation to admit the true costs of this new mandate, and to provide
the federal funds to pay for it if they continue to support it.”
Arizona Responds:
Your Tax Dollars and Abortion
By Cathi
Herod, President, Center for Arizona Policy
March 26, 2010
PHOENIX -- Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard
has declined to join other state attorney generals in a challenge to the
federal government's takeover of health care. In response,
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has called a
special session starting Monday to give her authority to sue
on behalf of our state.
As I watched the U.S. House vote last Sunday, I was
so very disappointed and outraged by the betrayal of the pro-life cause
by supposedly pro-life legislators who voted yes after President Obama
promised to sign an executive order that prohibited federal funding of
abortions.
Unfortunately, the order is
truly meaningless, as groups
on
both sides of the aisle
recognize. Stay tuned. We are working with state legislators to make
sure Arizona does not participate in any federal health care program
that funds abortions. On another front, Senate Bill 1305 sponsored by
Sen. Linda Gray and Rep. Nancy Barto will ensure that your state tax
dollars do not fund abortion through insurance coverage for government
employees. SB 1305 passed the Senate and the House Health committee
Wednesday.
You can track all our bills on our web
site.
Federal health care reform means paying more for
less
By Byron Schlomach, Goldwater Institute
March 26, 2010
PHOENIX -- One of my relatives received a letter Tuesday from his
primary-care physician announcing that he would no longer accept
private insurance or government payment. This doctor is moving
immediately to accepting only direct payment from patients for his
services. This is just the beginning of a cascade of consequences from
passage of the federal health care bill.
Here's
some insight into things to come:
· Health insurance will get
more expensive for most of us. A few unhealthy people will spend
less because of federal subsidies. But two mandates make higher
premiums inevitable: Everyone is guaranteed insurance coverage
and everyone in your community will pay the same premium.
Combine these requirements with the relatively modest IRS fine
for not buying insurance as required by law, and it increases
the likelihood that only the already-sick will buy coverage.
Therefore, insurance premiums will increase.
· It will become harder to
get health care. Many doctors, like my relative's physician,
will stop taking insurance (private or government-run), or they
will move to another country where we can visit them. Or they
will just leave the profession, not wanting to deal with the
intrusion that will accompany the new federal mandates.
· States will raise taxes. The federal law expands Medicaid and
states are required to match federal funding for the program.
States are not as free to borrow and they cannot print money
like the federal government. Short of miraculous levels of
revenue growth then, states will have to raise taxes to cover
the new mandatory expense.
This will only be the beginning. We may not be able to see the
ultimate end today, but one thing is certain: save for the few,
health care in America just got a lot more expensive.
Republicans Introduce Bill to Repeal Government Bill
WASHINGTON -- The text of the legislation backed by Inhofe and
introduced by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) reads as follows:
“To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Be it
enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. REPEAL. The Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the amendments made by that Act,
are repealed.”
"Congress
is considering setting doctor co-pay amounts and deductible levels. Once the
government is authorized to make health care decisions on such a micro level,
any future plan design modifications would require an act of Congress or a
decision by an executive branch agency. Rigid uniformity would replace flexible,
cost-effective decision making. Employer plans would be forced to cover things
workers may not want to pay for. That would increase costs and turn health
coverage decisions into political decisions. As innovation slows and insurance
costs rise, some employers would be forced to reduce or cancel their coverage.
Millions of Americans would lose their private health insurance." Wes Dyck, "Like Your Health Plan? Too Bad," The Heritage
Foundation, December 15, 2009
"Outside
of the income and payroll taxes and Prohibition, the individual mandate might be
the most intrusive peacetime measure ever undertaken by the federal government.
It will require people to buy a private good or service as a basic condition of
living in the U.S. If the Constitution weren’t all but a dead letter on such
questions, there’d be a roiling debate over what authority the federal
government has for this coercive extravagance." Rich Lowry, "One
Cheer for Howard Dean,"
National Review, Dec. 18, 2009
"“What’s
left of the bill compels universal participation in a system that everyone
agrees is a failure without reforming that system, and even exacerbates its
foremost problem — the problem of exploding costs.” Yuval Levin, Ethics and Public Policy Center, as reported in
Rich Lowry, "One
Cheer for Howard Dean,"
National Review, Dec. 18, 2009
"This 'personal responsibility' provision of the legislation, more accurately
known as the "individual mandate" because it commands all individuals to enter
into a contractual relationship with a private insurance company, takes
congressional power and control to a striking new level. Its defenders have
struggled to justify the mandate by analogizing it to existing federal laws and
court decisions, but their efforts do not withstand serious scrutiny. An
individual mandate to enter into a contract with or buy a particular product
from a private party, with tax penalties to enforce it, is unprecedented-- not
just in scope but in kind--and unconstitutional as a matter of first principles
and under any reasonable reading of judicial precedents. Congress has a
responsibility, pursuant to the oath of all Senators and Representatives, to
determine the constitutionality of its own actions independently of how the
Supreme Court has previously ruled or may rule in the future. But it is very
unlikely that the Court would extend current constitutional doctrines, or devise
new ones, to uphold this new and unprecedented claim of federal power." Randy Barnett, Nathaniel Stewart, and Todd Gaziano, "Why the
Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional,"
The Heritage Foundation, Dec. 9, 2009
"Very little in the Obama health
plan is new or original. Many of its policy initiatives are recycled from the
ill-fated Clinton health plan of 1993 and the Kerry health plan of 2004 and
strongly resemble a detailed proposal by the Commonwealth Fund, a prominent
liberal think tank. In general, the Obama plan would give the federal government
even more control of health care dollars and decisions—accelerating the federal
domination of the U.S. health care system." Robert Moffit and Nina Owcharenko, "Executive Summary: The
Obama Health Care Plan: More Power to Washington," The Heritage Foundation, Oct.
15, 2009
"The most significant
change in the Obama plan is a proposal to consolidate even more control of
health care dollars and decisions in Washington, D.C. This is a radical
departure from the decentralized decision-making system that sets the United
States apart from other developed countries. His plan includes several
initiatives that would give the federal government extensive control of the
financing, delivery, and management of health care. These government
initiatives would likely precipitate a rapid evolution toward a federal monopoly
over the health care sector. ... Despite the Senator’s rhetoric of "choice and
competition," his plan is laden with new regulations and government authority
that would leave ordinary Americans with even less control of their health care
dollars than they exercise today." Robert Moffit and Nina Owcharenko, "Executive Summary: The
Obama Health Care Plan: More Power to Washington," The Heritage Foundation, Oct.
15, 2009
"While taxes on health
insurers, drug companies, and medical-device manufacturers would start in 2010,
Americans would not enjoy health reform’s reputed benefits until 2014. Thus,
Obamacare is like calling 911, except that the ambulance shows up 48 months
late. The lives that Obamacare so urgently must save presumably will keep
expiring until the middle of Obama’s second term . . . or his successor’s
first." Deroy Murdock,
"A
$2.5 Trillion Self-Contradiction,"
National Review, Dec. 18, 2009
“The American people already know that Mr. Obama's plan to lower health costs
while expanding coverage and bureaucracy is a myth, a promise of something that
never was and never will be -- a bureaucracy lowering costs in a free society.
Either the costs go up or the free society goes away.” Ben Stein, The American Spectator
"At the end of the day, whether it's Obamacare version 1.0 or 2.0 or
3.0, it is going to be government health care. If you think there is
outrage now, wait until this thing passes and people have to live with
it. There is going to be more outrage than you can possibly
understand." Rush
Limbaug
FACTS
The Congressional
Budget Office concluded that under Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D.,
Nev.) bill, “average premiums per policy in the non-group market in 2016 would
be roughly $5,800 for single policies and $15,200 for family policies under the
proposal, compared with roughly $5,500 for single policies and $13,100 for
family policies under current law. Deroy Murdock, "A
$2.5 Trillion Self-Contradiction,"
National Review, Dec. 18, 2009
Compared to doing nothing, Richard Foster
estimated that “total
national health expenditures under this bill would increase by an estimated
total of $234 billion (0.7 percent)” between 2010 and 2019. U.S. health spending
would grow from 16 percent of GDP to 20.9 percent. Deroy Murdock,
"A
$2.5 Trillion Self-Contradiction,"
National Review, Dec. 18, 2009
Under a government healthcare system:
As a patient, you will not be able to make your
own healthcare decisions.
I, as your physician, will not have the primary
authority to prescribe drugs, authorize treatment and/or make swift
referrals for specialist care.
Previously independent and private healthcare
decisions will be disrupted via government intervention, regulation and
penalty enforcement. Essentially, the sanctity of “our” doctor-patient
relationship will be destroyed.
Health insurance premiums will soar.
The number of highly trained and experienced
physicians will plummet, especially within the specialist ranks.
The quality, efficiency and availability of
healthcare will dramatically decrease.
The United States will forfeit its position as
the world’s leader in medical technology, innovation and drug
development.
.JPG)
Here's
some insight into things to come: