Separation of Powers

"Ultimate sovereignty (power) in the United States resides with the people. In an attempt to govern themselves better, the people adopted the U.S. Constitution. Those persons present for the writing of the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, known as the Framers, feared the concentration of too much power in any one person or governmental agency. In an attempt to prevent such an accumulation of power, the Framers wrote a Constitution with a system of checks and balances." Myth from a government website [1]

On Monday, November 30, 2009, the day after the biggest shopping weekend of the year, when most Americans are busy with the holiday season (and might be distracted), our three branches of government worked tirelessly (but not for us) to increase government power:

• A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate said that the Senate healthcare "re-form" bill could significantly reduce costs for many people who buy health insurance on their own, and would not raise costs for the vast numbers of Americans who receive coverage from large employers. In other words, increased government involvement in healthcare would only be a good thing for everyone.
• President Obama (D) issued orders to send about 30,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan. The eight year war will continue.
• The Supreme Court vacated a lower court ruling requiring the government to release photographs showing the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. We wouldn't want people seeing what's really going on over there would we? Especially US citizens who think they're being protected from terrorism.

The Legislative Branch at Work for You

According to a November 30, 2009 NY Times article, "No Big Cost Rise in U.S. Premiums Is Seen in Study," a CBO estimate of costs for Senator Reid's "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" reassured healthcare "re-form" supporters:

"Centrist Democrats like Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, whose votes are vital to President Obama’s hopes of getting the bill approved, had feared that the measure would drive up costs for people with employer-sponsored coverage. After reading the budget office report, Mr. Bayh said he was reassured on that point."

Now the esteemed Senator can continue pretending he's taking good care of his constituents by voting for more government.

The 29 page letter (pdf) from the CBO to Senator Evan Bayh (D) was supposed to prove that individual insurance premiums wouldn't increase. According to the article:

"Before taking account of federal subsidies to help people buy insurance on their own, the budget office said the bill would tend to drive up premiums. But as a result of the subsidies, it said, most people in the individual insurance market would see their costs decline, compared with the costs expected under current law. The subsidies, a main feature of the bill, would cost the government nearly $450 billion in the next 10 years and would cover nearly two-thirds of premiums for people who receive them."

Earlier CBO estimates stated that the budget deficit wouldn't increase with healthcare "re-form" legislation. By successfully obfuscating healthcare "re-form" costs, the CBO accomplished its mission to confirm the benefits of increased government involvement in healthcare. Rahm Emanuel (D), White House chief of staff, welcomed the latest CBO estimate:

“The CBO has rendered a fundamental judgment that this will reduce the deficit and reduce people’s premium costs.”

Opposing Rs chose not to argue that socialized healthcare doesn't work and is just wrong. Instead Rs said the CBO estimate confirmed their concerns about premium price increases, which is about as relevant as arguing that they believe fewer angels can dance on the head of a pin than do Ds:

"...Republican senators like Charles E. Grassley of Iowa and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, said the report validated their concerns. They focused on the prediction that unsubsidized premiums in the individual insurance market, less than a fifth of those with health insurance, would rise an average of 10 percent to 13 percent."

On several pages of the estimate, the CBO said the analysis of premiums was extremely complex, so the experience of individuals and families "could vary significantly from the average.” On the final page, the CBO estimate explained the political nature of healthcare budget estimates (pdf):

"All of those considerations serve to emphasize the considerable uncertainty that surrounds any estimate of the impact of any proposal that would make substantial changes in the health insurance or health care sectors, given the size and the complexity of those sectors. That uncertainty applies to the estimated effects of proposals on the federal budget and insurance coverage rates, as well as to their impact on premiums."

Or to paraphrase: despite our pretensions of analysis, don't count on any of this to be accurate.

The Executive Branch at Work for You

According to another November 30, 2009 NY Times article, "Obama Issues Order for More Troops in Afghanistan," President Obama is trying to mimic two Presidents:

• LBJ (D) in his escalation of the Vietnam war simultaneous with his orchestration of a massive federal government intrusion in healthcare with the creation of Medicare in 1965, and
• GWB (R) on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln announcing "Mission Accomplished."

But in President Obama's case, healthcare "re-form" legislation hasn't passed yet, and apparently no aircraft carrier was available. Instead the President delivered a speech at the United States Military Academy at West Point Tuesday night.

The Obama administration also announced it was sending its special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and former arms dealer to Suharto, Richard Holbrooke, to Brussels on Tuesday to brief NATO and European allies about the escalation.

The Judicial Branch at Work for You

In "Supreme Court Overturns Decision on Detainee Photos," the third November 30, 2009 NY Times article documenting the tireless work ethic of our rulers and our wonderful system of checks and balances, the robed wise men and women of the US Supreme Court issued a three sentence ruling to vacate a lower court ruling. The end result is that the secretary of defense can block the release of incriminating photographs of prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Justice department of the Obama administration originally planned to release the photographs, but according to the article, the President, who is "committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government" [2]:

"...overruled his lawyers, saying his national security advisers had persuaded him that releasing the photos would inflame anti-American sentiment abroad and endanger American troops. Some of the pictures, according to a government brief, showed 'soldiers pointing pistols or rifles at the heads of hooded and handcuffed detainees,' a soldier who appears to be striking a detainee with the butt of a rifle, and a soldier holding a broom 'as if sticking its end' into a prisoner’s rectum."

Justice for all: as long as they aren't American citizens. As with the equivocal CBO report, the wise men and women of the Supreme Court were equally adept at pencil-whipping an issue. According to the article:

"The Supreme Court’s summary order in the case, Department of Defense v. A.C.L.U., No. 09-160, did not address whether that ruling was correct. It merely said the new law required reconsideration of the case."

The new law to which the Supreme Court referred, is a special dispensation by Congress delegating responsibility to the Executive branch to decide whether or not to release the incriminating photographs. According to the article:

"The law applies to photographs taken from Sept. 11, 2001, to Jan. 22, 2009, showing 'the treatment of individuals engaged, captured or detained after Sept. 11, 2001, by the armed forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States,' so long as the secretary of defense certifies that disclosure 'would endanger citizens of the United States, members of the United States armed forces or employees of the United States government deployed outside of the United States.' ”

Would it surprise you to know that secretary of defense Robert Gates signed just such a statement certifying that disclosure of photographs of criminal behavior by employees of the US government would endanger citizens and government employees of the US on November 13, 2009?

So much for checks and balances.

Our rulers think that separation of powers means separating you from yours. Aren't you reassured knowing they're working overtime to do so?

______________________________________________

[1] U.S. Courts The Federal Judiciary Separation of Powers Background information. (Accessed on December 1, 2009 at http://www.uscourts.gov/outreach/resources/separationofpowers.html)

[2] Memorandum by President Barack Obama on "Transparency and Open Government," (Accessed on December 1, 2009 at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/)

Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public...

Is the Public "Option" a Trojan Horse for a Single-Payer Plan?

“Someone once said to me, ‘This is a Trojan Horse for single-payer,’ and I said, ‘Well, it’s not a Trojan Horse – it’s right there! I’m telling you: we’re going to get there, over time, slowly.’” Jacob Hacker, professor of political science at Yale, and author of the basis of the healthcare "re-form" plan that Obama and Ds are selling. (Youtube video July 2008) [1]

The Trojan Horse story teaches us to beware of foes bearing gifts. Healthcare "re-formers" bring gifts to the people with today's healthcare "re-form" legislation. Professor Jacob Hacker denies any stealth in the gift of the public "option," since it's obvious to him that the public "option" will lead to socialized healthcare in the US. While acknowledging the inevitability of single-payer, Hacker is still careful with his terminology, using "single-payer" instead of "socialism". President Obama (D), politically constrained as Anita Dunn pointed out, can no longer even proclaim his professed goal of a universal single-payer plan.

So the President denies that the public "option" will lead to socialized healthcare. In a speech on June 11, 2009 at a town hall rally for healthcare "re-form" in Green Bay, WI, Obama disingenuously described R opposition to a public health insurance option in the healthcare re-form bill (video):

"It's not clear that it's based on any evidence, as much as it is their thinking, their fear that somehow once you have a public plan, that government will take over the entire healthcare system."

But it's not only Rs who see it as a step to socialized healthcare, "progressive" Paul Waldman, an advocate for socialized healthcare, explains in a December 23, 2008 American Prospect article:

"That isn't to say a public option is just a modified single-payer system. It would be one option among many for individuals and businesses, and would leave the private insurance system in place (you can read more on the benefits of the public option here). But it does crack the door open for expanding the number of Americans who get their health insurance through the government."

The Trojan Horse Strategy

While the President denies that the public "option" is a Trojan Horse for a single-payer healthcare system, what do other healthcare "re-formers" say?

Rahm Emanuel (D), the President’s chief of staff, "Mr. Don't-Let-a-Crisis-Go-to-Waste," clearly states how you are being lied to by the President in this video from June 17, 2009:

Socialized Healthcare Supporter: "Hey Rahm, why'd the President take single payer off the table? In 2003 he said he was for single-payer, now he's against it, why did he flip-flop?"

Emanuel: "Because it's just what I said in there. The objective is important, it's not the means."

Healthcare for America Now (HCAN) spokesman John Gaudette, speaking at a monthly meeting of the Progressive Democrats of America in May 11, 2009 outlines the strategy (at 3:00 in this video):

"...the public health insurance option is the thing to do because that's what's winnable. And you can make that strong enough and leave it to the American people to determine where this thing goes, its much easier to fix legislation when its created than to create something new, and that's something important to remember. This tension, this idea that we can hold out for something that's as grand and hopeful as we want tends to run counter to what's going on in DC."

In this one minute video, Gaudette, like Hacker and Emanuel, advises single-payer supporters to be patient, the public "option" will become single-payer. Gaudette credits congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D) from the Illinois 9th district, part of the House D leadership, for pushing the public "option." Watch this video of Schakowsky speaking to advocates of single-payer healthcare on April 18, 2009, as she vehemently affirms the strategy:

"And next to me was a guy from the insurance company, who then argued against the public health insurance option, saying 'it wouldn't let private insurance compete, that a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer.' (audience cheers)

“My single-payer friends, he was right. The man was right... I know that many of you here today are single-payer advocates and so am I... Those of us who are pushing for a public healthcare option don't disagree with the goal. This is not a principled fight. This is a fight about strategy for getting there, and I believe we will.”

Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold (D) also confirmed the strategy of using this year's iteration of healthcare "re-form" as a Trojan Horse for a socialist single-payer system in an interview May 5, 2009 (video):

"I would love to see it, and I believe the goal here is to create whatever legislation we have in a way that could be developed into something like a single-payer system."

Single-payer proponent and congressman, Barney Frank (D), acknowledges that the public "option" is a Trojan Horse in this July 27, 2009 video:

Socialized Healthcare Supporter: "Don't you think we should scratch everything and start anew with single-payer?"

Frank: "No."

Socialized Healthcare Supporter: "Why not? ...Why shouldn't we start with single-payer anew?"

Frank: "Because we don't have the votes for it. I wish we did. I think, if we get a good public option, it could lead to single-payer, and that's the best way to reach single-payer. Saying you'll do nothing until you reach single-payer is a sure way to never get it..."

Socialized Healthcare Supporter: "Right now there's not a strong public option, is there?"

Frank: "We don't know what the plan is. I'm for a strong public option. I think your strategy is suicidal for trying to get the single-payer. The best way we're going to get single-payer, the only way, is to have a public option and demonstrate its strength and its power."

Health and Human Services secretary Katherine Sebelius now denies the public "option" is the path to socialized healthcare according to a June 2009 AP interview:

"The notion that a public option 'is really the stalking horse' for a government-run system 'is not accurate,' Sebelius said."

But Sebelius, like Obama in 2007, outlined the gradual path to single-payer universal healthcare in this 2007 video:

“I’m all for a single-payer system…eventually"

Our political doctors have slipped on their rubber glove, and while they may start with a finger, soon it will be a fist.

Remember, it's for your own good.

__________________________________

[1] Patients United Now, “The Public Plan Deception—It’s Not About Choice” video: (accessed 24 Nov 2009 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ-6ebku3_E )

Watch the video and decide what you think Hacker is saying. Hacker acknowledges that the public "option" will lead to single payer socialism while he shills for his brainchild (pdf). He supplies the talking points that "re-form" proponents use, and believes that Medicare, one of the reasons the Obama administration is so hot to regulate healthcare costs is working well:

"The idea of a public insurance plan goes back very far, and the Medicare program, of course, embodies that ideal. In 1965, the United State decided that for America's elderly, and later for America's disabled, there would be a public health insurance plan available regardless of income or medical conditions. And that plan is enormously popular today, to the point that many Americans, it seems, aren't fully aware that it's a government insurance plan, because it works so well they just can't believe the government actually gets things right."[2]

Hacker says he was taken out of context in footnote 37 of PUBLIC PLAN CHOICE IN CONGRESSIONAL HEALTH PLANS: THE GOOD, THE NOT-SO-GOOD, AND THE UGLY, By Jacob S. Hacker, Ph.D., Aug 20, 2009, (accessed 24 Nov 2009 at http://www.metaglyfix.com/jsh/pdfs/Hacker_Public_Plan_August_2009.pdf):

"However, when a small firm decides to purchase coverage through the exchange, they are in effect buying group health insurance for their workers. If firms believe their workers would have access to better options through the exchange, why should they not be able to buy coverage for their workers through it? After all, employers who enrolled their workers in the exchange would have to pay the same share of the premium that they would have to pay if they purchased coverage outside the exchange, so the main attraction of going into the exchange for employers would be to obtain better value group health plans, including the public plan.37"

"37 Lately, comments I made at a 2008 forum have been taken out of context to suggest that public plan choice is a stealth strategy of eliminating private insurance. This is nonsense: I developed the public plan idea as an alternative to “Medicare for All” (see Hacker, Jacob S., “Fixing the Left’s Health Care Prescription,” Slate, 10 October 2006, accessed at http://www.slate.com/id/2151269/?nav=tap3), as well as a competitive alternative to private insurance that would compete on a level playing field with private plans within a new national insurance exchange (see Hacker, supra note 6). I do not believe that a new public plan will evolve into a single payer system. My aforementioned comment at the 2008 event was that the new public plan is not a hidden “Trojan Horse.” The public plan is right out in the open, as it should be, since most Americans say they want the choice of a new public plan. While I believe that we should move over time toward a system in which lower-wage workers and the employees of small firms—who are not served or ill-served by the private market today—have access to a more stable set of public and private insurance options, I have always contended that most higher-wage workers and large employers will continue to be covered by employment-based plans. As I wrote in my proposal, “The main reason why Health Care for America is comparatively inexpensive [with regard to new federal spending] is that higher-wage and larger employers would continue to offer qualified coverage privately. For large employers with higher payrolls, private employment-based coverage would remain a good deal—especially since this proposal would not eliminate the tax-favored status of private coverage. For employers not enjoying the administrative economies of large-group purchase or with lower payrolls, the Health Care for America Plan [offering the new public plan and private plans] would be the better option. Thus, most of the new federal spending would be targeted on those firms and workers least capable of providing or obtaining insurance today.” (Hacker, Jacob S., “Health Care for America,” EPI Briefing Paper #180, 11 January 2007, accessed at http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp180.html.)"

[2] "Inventor of the public option explains why it's crucial," Alex Koppelman, Salon, September 9, 2009, (accessed 24 Nov 2009 at http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/09/public_option/index.html).

Liars, Damned Liars, and Politicians (Part 3)

"The ability for elected officials to say things that are untrue, and I would say the ability to say one thing to one audience, and another thing to another audience has ended... There is no such thing as off the record. There is no such thing as a 'closed to press' meeting. Anybody with a cell phone can pick up the video.

"Senator Obama himself learned that when he told a fundraising group in San Francisco in March... He made some comments about people who owned guns in small communities that ended up, of course, costing us a lot of votes in rural Pennsylvania... Anything you say you should expect to be on Youtube...

"The premium for what ... I might just call being honest is much higher than it used to be: that what people could get away with even 4 years ago isn't going to happen." Anita Dunn, White House communications director for the first year of the Obama administration, speaking at a Jan. 12, 2009 event in the Dominican Republic on Obama's media tactics. (Minutes 4:40-6:32 of Youtube video)

Anita Dunn reminisces about the lost "ability for politicians to say things that are untrue" or more precisely, "to say one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience." What? Politicians lie?

Dunn acknowledges a premium for a politician speaking truthfully. Robert Reich (D) alluded to the same phenomenon in his September 26, 2007 speech at Berkeley, where he listed the goals of government-run healthcare.

According to Dunn, politicians can't "get away with" being honest about their goals any more. She even notes how her politician, Obama (D), unfortunately found he could no longer speak so truthfully in public settings. In Obama's case, he revealed his distaste for small town gun owners and people who "cling" to religion out of frustration (Youtube video).

The premium to politicians for revealing the true goals of their policies to the people is that those politicians might not get to inflict their visions on anyone. To paraphrase Lincoln, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool anyone if you actually tell them the truth about your plans for them. Imitating a doctor or nurse, but on a grander scale, politicians pretend they're saving the world with their "re-forms," lying to you that "it won't hurt a bit," right until they jab the needle in. Healthcare "re-form" will hurt, but according to the politicians, it's for our own good, so it's ok for them to lie; we can thank them later.

Politicians know what's best for us--just ask them.

Obama and the Public "Option"

On August 11, 2009 in Portsmouth, N.H., in his pursuit of healthcare "re-form," the President carefully made "a distinction between a universal plan versus a single payer plan" (video):

Q: "Mr. President, you've been quoted over the years -- when you were a senator and perhaps even before then -- that you were essentially a supporter of a universal plan. I'm beginning to see that you're changing that. Do you honestly believe that? Because that is my concern. I'm on Medicare, but I still worry that if we go to a public option, period, that the private companies, the insurance companies, rather than competing -- because who can compete with the government; the answer is nobody. So my question is do you still -- as yourself, now -- support a universal plan? Or are you open to the private industry still being maintained?"

PRESIDENT: "Well, I think it's an excellent question, so I appreciate the chance to respond. First of all, I want to make a distinction between a universal plan versus a single-payer plan, because those are two different things.

"A single-payer plan would be a plan like Medicare for all, or the kind of plan that they have in Canada, where basically government is the only person -- is the only entity that pays for all health care. Everybody has a government-paid-for plan, even though in, depending on which country, the doctors are still private or the hospitals might still be private. In some countries, the doctors work for the government and the hospitals are owned by the government. But the point is, is that government pays for everything, like Medicare for all. That is a single-payer plan.

"I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter because, frankly, we historically have had a employer-based system in this country with private insurers, and for us to transition to a system like that I believe would be too disruptive. So what would end up happening would be, a lot of people who currently have employer-based health care would suddenly find themselves dropped, and they would have to go into an entirely new system that had not been fully set up yet. And I would be concerned about the potential destructiveness of that kind of transition. All right? So I'm not promoting a single-payer plan."

The President wanted to make a distinction between a universal plan and a socialist single payer plan because he pretends that one will not lead to another. He says he is not "promoting" a single payer plan, but we do know he is "a proponent of a single payer universal healthcare plan" as he said in 2003 in this video of his speech to an AFL-CIO group during his US Senate campaign:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan.”

As late as 2007, then Senator Obama was advocating a gradual move to a universal single-payer healthcare plan. Forty seconds into this May 2007 video of then Senator Obama during his campaign for President, he described how the US could gradually be moved to a single payer plan:

“But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process — I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out...”

Why do you think they call it "single payer" and not socialism?

Today the President says he wants only mandatory universal healthcare, not single-payer. The proposed mandatory universal healthcare includes a curiously named public "option." The public "option" will be mandatory--if you don't have healthcare insurance, the government will force you to buy it. President Obama is not telling Americans that he ultimately wants universal single-payer healthcare because healthcare "re-form" would not pass in Congress if he advocated socialism directly. Most Congressional "re-form" supporters pretend for the public that individual Americans will still be in control of their healthcare after healthcare "re-form" legislation passes. "Re-formers" are rushing to pass legislation in Obama's first year because of the fleeting nature of political capital.

As Anita Dunn said, pols can't be "honest" with Americans about their real vision for America; no longer can a politician "get away with" what they could just four years ago. Dunn is right, and President Obama has learned his lesson: he can no longer pay the premium for honesty. The President is lying because he thinks he knows what's best for Americans. Remember: it's for your own good, it won't hurt a bit, and you'll be thanking them later.

Or will you?

Liars, Damned Liars, and Politicians (Part 2)

OBAMA: Now there are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This too is false. The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.

WILSON: You lie.

OBAMA: That's not true. From an exchange during President Obama's speech before a joint session of Congress September 9, 2009

Was Joe Wilson (R) right? Did Obama (D) lie? Decide for yourself.

"Raul Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat, said Hispanic lawmakers got a pledge from leaders to defeat any Republican attempt to insert language to bar undocumented immigrants from exchanges." From Bloomberg article "Democrats Seek Votes on Health-Care as Delay Possible (Update1)" the day before the US House passed healthcare "re-form" legislation HR 3962 by a vote of 210-205.

Representative Wilson's rudeness during President Obama's speech to Congress on healthcare "re-form" drew attention to the messenger. But what about Wilson's message? President Obama promised his healthcare "re-forms" wouldn't apply to illegal aliens, so why was it so important to Hispanic lawmakers that D-leaders pledge to defeat any language that barred illegal aliens from the health insurance exchanges?

On November 7, 2009, the House passed the largest expansion of the nation’s healthcare system since the 1965 creation of Medicare.[1] The Congressional Budget Office estimate for HR 3962 (CBO estimate pdf) predicted:

"According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3962 would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2010–2019 period (see Table 1). In the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be slight reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty.

"The estimate includes a projected net cost of $891 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $1,052 billion in subsidies provided through the exchanges (and related spending), increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $167 billion in collections of penalties paid by individuals and employers."

Statistics and Illegal Alien Demographics

Only in Washington, D.C. can a bill projected to cost more than $1 trillion over 10 years be considered to reduce the budget deficit over the same time period by $109 billion. To do the equivalent on a small scale, you'd have to plan to buy a yacht while you're millions of dollars in debt, buy a speedboat instead, and then tell your family you're saving lots of money because you didn't buy the yacht.

Notice also how the CBO estimate (see Table 3 of estimate) counts $168 billion in penalties paid by individuals and employers as income. House Ways and Means Committee Member Dave Camp (R) released a letter (pdf) from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that failure to comply with the mandate in HR 3962 for individuals to buy health insurance would land people in jail. People who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and do not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

The CBO is so certain that this onerous bill will oppress people and that many will try to avoid complying with it, that its budget estimate includes future penalties. Adding penalties as income to the estimate lets the CBO pretend HR 3962 costs even less than everyone knows it will. Congress is depending on people breaking the law, so they made it painful enough to force many people to break it. This lets the CBO publicize that the inevitable penalties collected are not an increase in taxes.

If Congress makes it illegal to breathe and collects penalties when people do what it takes to survive, they could subsidize lots of programs while bragging that taxes were low.

Magic and misdirection while the crowd cheers for more.

Federal bureaucrats also plan for illegal aliens to help pay for the extra costs through FICA taxes. The 2009 Annual Report by the Board of Trustees for Social Security and Medicare uses illegal aliens in their estimates of the future costs of Social Security and Medicare.[2] The federal government has no incentive to stop illegal border crossings because it depends on enough people crossing the border illegally to help pay for Medicare and Social Security. Actuaries count illegal aliens favorably in their calculations of future program costs.[3]

Paying Off the AMA

Is Obama lying about anything else?

The AMA usually opposes changes in the status quo. But this time the AMA supports healthcare "re-form" because it was bought off (pdf) with promises of change to the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) payment system for physicians. Without a change to current law, SGR Medicare payments to doctors are scheduled to be cut 21.5 percent as of January 1, 2010, and by an additional 5.5 percent each year from 2011 through 2014, with another small reduction in 2015.[4] Typically, Congress--under both D and R leadership--routinely prevents the cuts from taking effect for a year or two at a time. But House and Senate leaders have always left intact the underlying requirement to keep doctor payment below the rate of GDP growth.[5]

To get AMA support, healthcare "re-formers" promised to end for the next ten years the annual question of whether the SGR Medicare payment cuts will go into effect . To do that, "re-formers" must commit to spending an additional $247 billion on healthcare. The problem for "re-formers" is this impacts the perceived cost of healthcare "re-form." President Obama had initially targeted the cost for "re-form" at $900 billion over 10 years. Adding the $247 billion to the healthcare "re-form" legislation obviously puts the cost at over trillion dollars.

Healthcare "re-formers" tried to hide the bribe to the AMA. They didn't want it tabulated in the CBO estimate for what healthcare "re-form" legislation would cost. A separate $247 billion Senate measure, S.1776, the Stabenow bill, would have imposed a 10-year freeze on mandated cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. Rs defeated S.1776 on October 21, 2009, signaling the House that it would have to bury some of that money in the House version of healthcare "re-form": HR 3962.

On November 7, 2009, the House passed an amendment to HR 3962, HR 3961, which did just that. HR 3961, the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act of 2009, amends title XVIII of the Social Security Act to reform the Medicare SGR payment system. HR 3962 exceeds the $900 billion cost target by approximately $200 billion: the CBO estimates it will cost $1.1 trillion over 10 years.

As for the Senate, Alexander Bolton writes in The Hill:

"A senior Democratic senator who spoke on condition of anonymity said the defeat of Stabenow’s bill could have reverberations, but only if Democratic leaders fail to assure doctors groups that that they will find another way to avert cuts in their Medicare reimbursements, which are mandated by a 1997 budget law."

Candidate Obama vowed he'd be open with the American people (video). President Obama has not kept his promise, making backroom deals with the AMA and planning for continued use of taxpayer resources for illegal aliens.

Wilson told Obama: "You lie."

Is it true? You decide.

______________________________________________

[1] HR 3962 was 1990 pages (pdf) before amendments were added. The Senate is considering a similar bill.

[2] The Social Security Act requires that the Board, among other duties, report annually to the Congress on the actuarial (financial) status of the OASI and DI Trust Funds. The 2009 annual report, "THE 2009 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FEDERAL OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE AND FEDERAL DISABILITY INSURANCE TRUST FUNDS" is the 69th such report.

The Board of Trustees was established under the Social Security Act to oversee the financial operations of the OASI and DI Trust Funds. The Deputy Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA) is designated as Secretary of the Board. The Board is composed of six members:

• Four members serve by virtue of their positions in the Federal Government: the Secretary of the Treasury, who is the Managing Trustee; the Secretary of Labor; the Secretary of Health and Human Services; and the Commissioner of Social Security.
• The other two positions, which are currently vacant, are for members of the public, to be appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Senate.

[3] THE 2009 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FEDERAL OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE AND FEDERAL DISABILITY INSURANCE TRUST FUNDS, V. ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODS UNDERLYING ACTUARIAL ESTIMATES, at http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2009/trTOC.html (November 10, 2009)

In the "2009 OASDI Trustees Report," illegal immigration is considered as "Other Immigration," in contrast to legal immigration. In Section V ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODS UNDERLYING ACTUARIAL ESTIMATES, Part 3 Immigration Assumptions, illegal immigration helps the calculation by adding to the number of taxpayers paying Social Security and Medicare taxes:

"Other immigration consists of immigrants who enter the Social Security area in a given year and stay to the end of that year without having LPR status, such as undocumented immigrants and temporary foreign workers and students.

...

"Combining the annual legal immigration and emigration assumptions results in ultimate net legal immigration of 750,000 persons per year under the intermediate alternative. For the low-cost and high-cost scenarios, ultimate annual net legal immigration is 960,000 persons and 560,000 persons, respectively.

"The number of other immigrants residing in the Social Security area population is estimated to have been about 9.7 million persons as of January 1, 2000, increasing to about 12.8 million persons as of January 1, 2006. This other-immigrant population is highly mobile and far more likely to leave the Social Security area than is the native-born or legal-immigrant population. The average number of persons entering the other-immigrant population in the period 2000 through 2006 is estimated to have been about 1.5 million per year. During the same period, the number of other immigrants who left the Social Security area or adjusted status to become LPRs is estimated to have averaged about 960,000 per year. Thus, annual net other immigration during this time period is estimated to have averaged approximately 540,000 persons.

"For the intermediate assumptions, annual other immigration is assumed to continue at the level of 1.5 million persons throughout the projection period. For the low- and high-cost scenarios, future annual other immigration is assumed to average 1.8 million persons and 1.2 million persons, respectively.

"Emigration from the other-immigrant population includes those who leave the Social Security area and those who adjust status to become LPRs. The annual number of other immigrants who leave the Social Security area is estimated based on modeled departures, disaggregated into two groups, for the period 2000-06. The first departing group is set at fixed annual numbers of departures, by age and sex, which remain constant throughout the projection period. This first group is directly related to the number of other immigrants that are assumed to have recently entered the Social Security area. The second departing group is calculated by applying a set of annual departure rates, by age and sex, to the other-immigrant population in the Social Security area. In addition, the annual number of other immigrants who adjust status to become LPRs is assumed to ultimately be 500,000 for the intermediate assumptions. This level is one third of the annual number of other immigrants assumed to enter the Social Security area. For the low- and high-cost scenarios, ultimate annual numbers adjusting status to LPR are assumed to average 600,000 persons and 400,000 persons, respectively.

"Under the assumptions and methods described above, the size of the other-immigrant population is projected to grow substantially. This growth reflects the excess of annual other immigration over the combined annual numbers of emigrants and deaths that occur within the other-immigrant population.

"Net other immigration decreased from a level averaging over 590,000 per year in the period 2000 through 2003, to about 465,000 in 2006, reflecting an increase in the number of other immigrants adjusting to LPR status as a result of the effort to reduce the backlog of applications for LPR status. By 2010, when the backlog of applications is expected to be eliminated, net other immigration is projected to be about 440,000 persons per year. After 2010, net other immigration is projected to decline steadily to about 275,000 in 2063 and to remain fairly stable thereafter. The decline in net other immigration is attributable to the increasing number of other immigrants residing in the Social Security area. This results in an increase in the numbers who emigrate out of the area based on the rates of departure described above. All other components of other immigration and emigration are set at fixed levels after 2010, and thus do not contribute toward any change in net other immigration. The average annual level of net other immigration over the 75-year projection period is about 315,000 persons. Net other immigration is estimated to average about 410,000 persons per year under the low-cost assumptions and 220,000 persons per year under the high-cost assumptions.

"The total level of net immigration (legal and other combined) is estimated to average 1,065,000 persons per year during the 75-year projection period under the intermediate assumptions. For the low-cost assumptions, total net immigration is estimated to average 1,370,000 persons per year. Under the high-cost assumptions, total net immigration is estimated to average 785,000 persons per year.

"Demographers express a wide range of views about the future course of immigration for the United States. Some, like the 2007 Technical Panel mentioned in the previous section, believe that immigration will increase substantially in the future. Others believe that potential immigrants may be attracted to other countries or that the U.S. borders could be tightened in the future."

[4] 2009 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, May 12, 2009, p. 22, at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/reportstrustfunds/downloads/tr2009.pdf (September 24, 2009).

[5] The Baucus Health Bill: A Medicare Physician Payment Shell Game, by Dennis G Smith, September 25, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/healthcare/wm2629.cfm (November 10, 2009)

Liars, Damned Liars, and Politicians (Part 1)

"One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation's medical care before the August recess-- for a program that would not take effect until 2013!" Thomas Sowell, "Listening to a Liar" on the eve of the President's September 9, 2009 speech to Congress on Healthcare "Re-form"

When politicians talk about how things get paid for, they're usually talking about the free market vs. some form of collectivism: either socialism or fascism. Certain words are hot buttons in American politics, so instead of speaking truthfully, politicians use euphemisms to distract the majority, who often don't understand what socialism or fascism even mean.

For example, when the US government invaded Iraq, they called it Operation Iraqi Freedom and not Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL)--they want to distract you, not inform you. When the government wants to subsidize an industry, it gives the operation a benign-sounding label:

• Cash for Clunkers subsidized a government enterprise while supposedly helping the environment.
• TARP subsidized well-connected investment bankers by clearing toxic investments off their books and loaning them money.
• The Stimulus bill plans to dump hundreds of billions of dollars off a cliff with special interests at the bottom waiting with empty dump trucks, ready to drive off laden with cash. Are you stimulated?

Similarly, all the debate about healthcare reform isn't about improving health care. The re-form is about who pays.

Calling it "healthcare" reform is the first lie.

Now is the time to deliver

President Obama (D) and his supporters have a vision of how you should pay for healthcare in America. He seems to believe, as does his White House communications director Anita Dunn, that once you choose "your Calcutta"--your vision--you don't have to let anyone tell you how to get there. Anything goes. Apparently lying included. Sowell has similarly observed this motif in the Obama administration:

"There are lots of people in the Obama administration who want to do things that have not been done before-- and to do them before the public realizes what is happening."

The second lie: the Obama administration's urgency to push healthcare "re-form" legislation through Congress before its August recess, when the legislation wouldn't take effect until 2013, and while so many Americans oppose it.

Read my lips

The White House website lists talking points about the latest incarnation of the healthcare "re-form" legislation saying: "it is fully paid for and will reduce the deficit in the long term." In his September 9, 2009 speech to a joint session of Congress, President Obama said:

"And here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future. (Applause.) I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period."

Sounds a little like "Read my lips: no new taxes," uttered by GHW Bush (R) in 1988, doesn't it? He too was lying back then. But President Obama doesn't pretend that he won't increase taxes to pay for his "re-form":

"Now, part of the reason I faced a trillion-dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for -- from the Iraq war to tax breaks for the wealthy. (Applause.) I will not make that same mistake with health care."

Are you wealthy? In today's economy that might mean anyone not broke. Get ready to get it good and hard from the "healthcare re-formers."

In a column, "Listening to a Liar Part II," economist Thomas Sowell suggests:

"To tell us, with a straight face, that he can insure millions more people without adding to the already skyrocketing deficit, is world-class chutzpa and an insult to anyone's intelligence."

Are you insulted by the President and his healthcare "re-form" supporters? Need more proof? The phony 1/4 trillion dollar bill to buy AMA support was an attempt to keep the "re-form" legislation under the $900 billion limit set by President Obama. Anything more makes the CBO estimate show a deficit increase.

To say healthcare "re-form" legislation won't increase the deficit is also a lie.

When "option" doesn't mean optional

Well before his campaign for President, then Illinois state senator Barack Obama made clear his preference for a universal single-payer healthcare system--where the government pays healthcare bills. In a June 30, 2003 talk to the Illinois AFL-CIO (video) he said:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” (applause) “I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

Obama's socialist view dogged him during his campaign for President (video). He squirmed out of his history of support for a single payer universal health care system, saying that while he preferred a single payer system, he wasn't proposing one. Instead, candidate Obama proposed a "public option." In this case, "public option" means that if you have other insurance, you don't have to select the "public option." But everyone must buy healthcare insurance: you would not be allowed to go without health insurance.

Many of the 40 plus million people without health insurance make a decision to go without because they can't afford it, or because they don't think healthcare insurance is worth the price. That would no longer be an option if the "public option" becomes law. This is similar to government elections: you can decide not to vote, but you can't vote "none of the above" to throw the bums out. You always get stuck with one of the "choices" on the ballot.

Another lie then: calling the "public option" optional.

Single Payer Trojan Horse

The President repeatedly says the public "option" is the best way "to ensure choice and competition so badly needed in today’s market." Sowell disputes this:

"President Obama tells us that he will impose various mandates on insurance companies but will not interfere with our free choice between being insured by these companies or by the government. But if he can drive up the cost of private insurance with mandates and subsidize government insurance with the taxpayers' money, how long do you think it will be before we have the 'single payer' system he has advocated in the past?"

The biggest lie: the President denies the public "option" is a Trojan horse for socialized healthcare.

Mao and Mother Teresa

"The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa -- not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is you're going to make choices; you're going to challenge; you're going to say why not; you're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before." Obama campaign adviser and now his White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn in a June 5, 2009 speech to graduating high school students at St. Andrews Episcopal School.

Glenn Beck of Fox News told all who'd listen about Anita Dunn's speech (video) about life's choices to high school students. Dunn talks about her "two favorite political philosophers": Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa, and Beck is livid that people aren't marching in the streets about it. While Obamaphiles won't acknowledge that following Mao's political philosophy is wrong, according to Beck, Dunn's speech is more evidence that the federal government has been taken over by Communists. Why else would an inner circle Obama adviser claim Mao, who caused the deaths of millions during his life, as one of her favorite philosophers?

Find Your Own Calcutta

The part of Mao's wisdom that enamors Dunn is that he wasn't deterred from achieving his vision. Dunn continues:

"But here's the deal, these are your choices. They are no one else's. In 1947 when Mao Tse Tung was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army, they had the air force, they had everything on their side. And people said, how can you win, how can you do this, how can you do this against all of the odds against you? And Mao Tse Tung said, 'You fight your war and I'll fight mine.' Think about that for a second, you don't have to accept the definition of how to do things, you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths."

Dunn is correct, Mao didn't follow other people's choices and paths; he followed his own and killed anyone who disagreed with him.

Dunn next relates an anecdote of Mother Teresa telling a woman who wanted to help change the world that the woman must find her "own Calcutta" to succeed. Mother Teresa uses Calcutta as a metaphor for some instance of human misery where that woman could serve others to improve their lives. Just as Mother Teresa did with her own life.

Taking the quote from Mao and the example of Mother Teresa together, Dunn seems to be saying that once you decide on your own Calcutta, it's doesn't matter how many people you kill getting there. What terrifies Beck and many Americans is that someone as close to Obama as Dunn is, could consider Mao, a killer of millions, as admirable a role model as Mother Teresa.

Dunn juxtaposes Mother Teresa and Mao, and while aware of the irony, she doesn't see the contradiction. Mother Teresa is worthy of emulation, not only because her vision was to do good, but because of how she went about it. Mother Teresa spent her life serving the most miserable of society: the disabled, diseased, elderly, alcoholics, and the poor and homeless. The reasons Mother Teresa is worthy of emulation are exactly the same reasons Mao is unworthy.

Mao Is Not Alone

Recently, the 60th anniversary of Mao's founding of the People's Republic of China was not celebrated in Changchun. In 1948, one year after he said what Dunn now finds so pithy, Mao's army blockaded Changchun and starved 160,000 civilians to death while battling Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist Army.

Historians calculate that over his life Mao was responsible for the deaths of 70 million human beings, more than Hitler and Stalin combined. While a prolific killer, Mao wasn't unique in finding "his Calcutta," just more impatient with the opposition. He's got company in the US:

• The siege of Changchun was three years after the Truman (D) administration incinerated as many people in Hiroshima and 70,000 more in Nagasaki.
• The US-led embargo of Iraq during the GHW Bush (R) and Clinton (D) administrations killed an estimated 500,000 Iraqi civilians.
• The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 by GW Bush (R) administration has killed approximately 100,000 Iraqi civilians.
• The Obama (D) administration hasn't let killing civilians prevent it from pursuing its vision of a "better world": the American share of the Afghan civilian death total is estimated by the UN at over 300 for US air strikes in the first six months of 2009. Isn't one life lost, one too many?

American citizens aren't marching in the streets to protest Dunn's kind of reasoning because it's business as usual in the US: the civilians killed by the US are just fewer in number and usually aren't citizens.

Robert Reich Finds His Calcutta

In another example of Dunn-like reasoning where the ends justifies the means, Robert Reich, former Clinton administration secretary of Labor and Obama campaign adviser, made an ad (video) shilling for the "public option" for healthcare re-form this year. Reich smiles, Red Riding Hood cringes, then Reich calmly and quietly explains the "public option":

"You've probably heard a lot about something called the public option for healthcare reform. But many Americans don't feel they know exactly what it is. Imagine you live in a city like say, Cleveland. Right now in most of the city you can choose from only a few plans.

"With the public option you'd be able to choose between these plans and the public option. That's it. It's that simple... The public plan would not be subsidized or have the government set the rules for anyone. If they aren't the best, they lose. That's not very scary or complicated at all. Is it?"

As Reich finishes you can picture a reassured grandmother or grandfather telling their representative to support the "public option" as the best thing. All that talk about rationing and death panels? Just more scare tactics by special interests, right? Or was it?

What Reich doesn't mention in his 2009 ad is what he said two years earlier on September 26, 2007 at Berkeley, where Reich described what an honest President would say about healthcare reform. According to Reich, "this is what the truth is...and what the candidate should say if we were in the kind of democracy in which citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship" (audio):

"By the way, ahh, we're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die." (Audience whoops and applauds.)

Reich obviously doesn't have any problem lying to accomplish his vision. For now it's socialized healthcare. He won't advertise that once the government controls healthcare, if you're old, "we're going to let you die."

How many of those who can see what's wrong with Mao causing the deaths of millions for his vision, cannot see that it's just as wrong when US troops invade and kill in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Pakistan for the US government's vision of what the world should look like? Or see that it's just as wrong when prevaricating bureaucrats and cheering college students decide when the old should die to support their vision? Both Rs and Ds seem to think that it's ok for others to die for a vision.

Does a good purpose ever justify any means taken to achieve it?

How about when you feed only your own children or grandparents into the fire to achieve it? Or like Mother Teresa, when you put only your own life on the line?

Plain Language (Part 2)

Nicholas Ballasy, CNSNews.com: I wanted to ask you if you plan... to read the entire actual text of the health care bill before the committee votes on it.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.): I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life. We, we write in this committee and legislate with plain English and I think most of us can understand most of that. When you get into the legislative language, Senator Conrad actually read some of it, several pages of it, the other day and I don’t think anybody had a clue--including people who have served on this committee for decades--what he was talking about. So, legislative language is so arcane, so confusing, refers to other parts of the code—‘and after the first syllable insert the word X’--and it’s just, it really doesn’t make much sense. So the idea of reading the plain English version: Yeah, I’ll probably do that. The idea of reading the legislative language: It’s just anyone who says that they can do that and actually get much out of it is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. From an October 02, 2009 CNSNews article: "Finance Committee Democrat Won’t Read Text of Health Bill, Says Anyone Who Claims They’ll Understand It ‘Is Trying to Pull the Wool Over Our Eyes’.

Remember the controversy about the PATRIOT Act, when our legislators didn't even read the bill because it wasn't available before the vote? How about the similar controversy over the stimulus bill that no one read? Carper's admission explains what most likely happened with those two bills: it didn't matter that our legislators didn't have time to read the bills, because they typically don't read the bills when they do have time.

Former Delaware governor and congressman, and now US Senator and Senate Finance Committee member, Thomas Carper (D), spoke honestly about the limitations of legislators' understanding of the language of the healthcare re-form bill during an interview. Asked about the text of the healthcare re-form bill in the Senate Finance Committee, Carper admits he can't even understand the language of the actual bill, and doubts any other legislators can understand it. Carper's response should give central planning advocates pause:

Ballasy: Do you think Republicans on the committee should be able to read the entire full actual text of the bill?
Carper: I, I--They might say that they’re reading it. They might say that they’re understanding it. But that would probably be the triumph of man’s hope over experience. It’s hard stuff to understand.

Have you ever had to visit a half dozen specialists to get the correct diagnosis for an illness? Or maybe you know someone who needed to see several doctors to figure out how to treat his or her symptoms. Healthcare choices for one person can be complex. Imagine the wisdom necessary to design the operation of a healthcare system for 300 million people. It doesn't seem possible that a small group of people can decide how to do that. How would they even know what each one of those 300 million people wanted and needed?

The 535 people in Congress and the bureaucrats in the executive branch now working to decide how 15% of the US economy is to operate will need godlike knowledge to do their job, yet they're incapable of reading the actual legislation that they plan to inflict on Americans. Unfortunately, the closest politicians get to being godlike is in their imaginations.

Secret Deals Buried in Legalese

The Senate Finance Committee is considering the Baucus Mark of the "America's Healthy Future Act," available online as a 262-page marked-up overview (pdf), written in "conceptual language." The legalese version of the bill doesn't exist, only the overview. Senator John Cornyn (R), also on the Finance committee, said the descriptive language the committee is working with is not good enough because things can be slipped into the legislation unseen:

“We’ve seen that there are side deals that have been cut, for example, with some special interest groups like the hospital association to hold them harmless from certain cuts that would impact how the CBO scores the bill or determines cost. So we need to know not only the conceptual language, we need to know the detailed legislative language, and we need to know what kind of secret deals have been cut on the side which would have an impact on how much this bill is going to cost and how it will affect health care in America.”

Politicians wouldn't lie or use misleading wording in legislation would they? Or perhaps this legalese explains Bill Clinton's obfuscation (video) of the meaning of 'is'?

CBO Scoring

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of HR3200 (pdf) estimates it would add $239 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. The CBO estimate (pdf) for S.1679, the Affordable Healthcare Choices Act, projects a deficit increase of $579 billion through 2019. Because the CBO estimated the deficit would increase with these bills, the Senate Finance Committee also worked on a version of healthcare "re-form" that would have a better CBO score and be politically more acceptable--one that would reduce the deficit.

An October 7, 2009 CBO analysis (pdf) of Baucus' America's Healthy Future Act, projects it would reduce the deficit by $81 billion over the next ten years. The Baucus bill would increase federal spending by $829 billion, so to reduce the deficit it increases taxes and fees, redistributing wealth from those that have to those who don't.

Since many legislators want increased federal involvement in healthcare, the CBO score predicting deficit reduction is a political green light to the Finance committee to approve the bill for floor debate. It doesn't matter to legislators that the CBO numbers usually underestimate how much federal spending is involved and how much the deficit increases. Or that the projected Senate savings of $81 billion over ten years for Senate Finance chairman Baucus' version is peanuts compared to a budget deficit that increased $455 billion in Bush's last year, and is projected to increase by $1.186 trillion in Obama's first year in office (p. 23 of pdf).

Income Redistribution

That even our legislators can't understand the actual bills on which they vote, gives proof to the lie that our democracy works for anyone but the powerful and a mob that wants only to be taken care of by Big Brother at someone else's expense. A September 24, 2009 CNSNews article: "Obama's Policies Would Redistribute Nearly $1 Trillion in Wealth Every Year," quotes Scott Hodge, President of the Tax Foundation, a D.C. lobbying group, about the wealth redistribution in the US in the next three years:

“Even if none of Obama’s policies becomes law, the extent of income redistribution is remarkable. The top-earning 40 percent of families will transfer $826 billion to the bottom 60 percent in 2012."

All you as a taxpayer really need understand about healthcare "re-form" is that supporters of more federal involvement in healthcare want to decide for you what to do with your money; congressional leaders don't want to post bills online. Senator Carper can't understand why you'd even want to read the legislative language:

Ballasy: Last question for you. If members on the committee, whether it’s Republican or Democrat, want to read the legislative language--if they feel they can understand it--will that language be available? Do you know where that language is? Have you seen any of the language or the full actual text?
Carper: In the time that I’ve spent here, I’ve seen plenty of legislative language and I know more often than not it’s almost incomprehensible as to what it means. Because what you do is you take certain language and you insert it in other parts of the law, other parts of the bill, and it frankly almost defies comprehension in many instances. Why that is a value and why someone should need to read that, or feel the need--I don’t understand. The idea, is actually like, say, I get my credit card disclosure and I have a one or two page summary written in plain English and then I have like 40 or 50 pages written by an attorney or a bunch of attorneys that is almost impossible to understand--Why you would insist on reading the stuff that’s incomprehensible as opposed to the plain English language that’s ordered by law so that people can understand it, that’s beyond me.

Euphemistically-speaking, the federal government wants to "redistribute" your income. Plain English translation: our representatives in Congress don't even understand the legalese of the bills they vote on, but that won't stop them from voting for them, and you'll pay for it.

Plain Language (Part 1)

What follows is an extract from one of the proposed Congressional bills to re-form U.S. healthcare: Senate bill S. 1679, The Affordable Healthcare Choices Act as of July 15, 2009 (pdf).

CAUTION: People have been injured trying to stay awake while reading legislation.

S. 1679 is the 839-page Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Senate committee version of the 1017-page House bill, HR3200, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (pdf). Both bills are detailed attempts to micro-manage the healthcare industry, but most legislators will vote after reading only a 25-page summary (pdf) written in conceptual language (plain English) by the Senate committee. The Senate Finance Committee has another version of the bill available online only as a 262-page marked up summary: Finance chairman Baucus' America's Healthy Future Act (pdf).

The extract from Senate bill S. 1679 is shown in legalese, followed by a one paragraph summary from the conceptual language document. Sections 152 and 161 below, describe the proposed changes to the Internal Revenue Code to add penalties for individuals not carrying healthcare insurance, and for voluntary authorization to the Treasury secretary to release individual tax information to the Department of HHS.

Sections 152 and 161, Pages 158-166, of Senate Bill S. 1679, The Affordable Healthcare Choices Act

(From O:\BAI\BAI09I50.xml [file 1 of 6] S.L.C.pp. 158-166)

16 SEC. 152. PROGRAM INTEGRITY.
17 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (l) of section 6103 of
18 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding
19 at the end the following new paragraph:
20 ‘‘(21) VOLUNTARY AUTHORIZATION FOR IN

21 COME VERIFICATION.—
22 ‘‘(A) VOLUNTARY AUTHORIZATION.—The
23 Secretary shall provide a mechanism for each
24 taxpayer to indicate whether such taxpayer au

25 thorizes the Secretary to disclose to the Sec

p. 159
1 retary of Health and Human Services (or, pur

2 suant to a delegation described in subsection
3 (d)(4)(B), to a State or a Gateway (as defined
4 in section 3101 of the Public Health Service
5 Act) return information of a taxpayer who may
6 be eligible for credits under section 3111 of the
7 Public Health Service Act.
8 ‘‘(B) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—If a
9 taxpayer authorizes the disclosure described in
10 subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall disclose
11 to the Secretary of Health and Human Services
12 (or, pursuant to a delegation described in sub

13 section (d)(4)(B), to a State or a Gateway) the
14 minimum necessary amount of information nec

15 essary to establish whether such individual is el

16 igible for credits under section 3111 of the
17 Public Health Service Act.
18 ‘‘(C) RESTRICTION ON USE OF DISCLOSED
19 INFORMATION.—Return information disclosed
20 under subparagraph (A) may be used by the
21 Secretary (or, pursuant to a delegation de

22 scribed in subsection (d)(4)(B), a State or a
23 Gateway) only for the purposes of, and to the
24 extent necessary in, establishing the appropriate
p. 160
1 amount of any payments under section 3111 of
2 the Public Health Service Act.’’.
3 (b) COLLECTION OF AMOUNTS.—Section 6305(a) of
4 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by insert

5 ing ‘‘or under section 3111 of the Public Health Service
6 Act’’ after ‘‘Social Security Act’’.
7 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—
8 (1) Paragraph (3) of section 6103(a) of such
9 Code is amended by striking ‘‘or (20)’’ and inserting
10 ‘‘(20), or (21)’’.
11 (2) Paragraph (4) of section 6103(p) of such
12 Code is amended by striking ‘‘(l)(10), (16), (18),
13 (19), or (20)’’ each place it appears and inserting
14 ‘‘(l)(10), (16), (18), (19), (20), or (21)’’.
15 (3) Paragraph (2) of section 7213(a) of such
16 Code is amended by striking ‘‘or (20)’’ and inserting
17 ‘‘(20), or (21)’’.
18 Subtitle D—Shared Responsibility
19 for Health Care
20 SEC. 161. INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY.
21 (a) PAYMENTS.—
22 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter A of chapter 1
23 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
24 determination of tax liability) is amended by adding
25 at the end the following new part:
p. 161
1 ‘‘PART VIII—SHARED RESPONSIBILITY
2 PAYMENTS
‘‘Sec. 59B. Shared responsibility payments.
3 ‘‘SEC. 59B. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENTS.
4 ‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT.—Every individual shall ensure
5 that such individual, and each dependent of such indi

6 vidual, is covered under qualifying coverage at all times
7 during the taxable year.
8 ‘‘(b) PAYMENT.—
9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—
10 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any in

11 dividual who did not have in effect qualifying
12 coverage (as defined in section 3116 of the
13 Public Health Service Act) for any month dur

14 ing the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
15 for the taxable year, in addition to any other
16 amount imposed by this subtitle, an amount
17 equal to the amount established under para

18 graph (2).
19 ‘‘(B) RULE FOR DEPENDENTS.—Any
20 amount to be imposed under this subsection
21 with respect to an individual described in sub

22 paragraph (A) that is a dependent (as defined
23 in section 152) of another taxpayer shall be im

24 posed—
p. 162
1 ‘‘(i) except in any case described in
2 clause (ii), upon the taxpayer on whom
3 such individual is a dependent; or
4 ‘‘(ii) in any case in which the taxpayer
5 with respect to whom such individual is a
6 dependent files a joint return, jointly upon
7 the taxpayer and the spouse of the tax

8 payer.
9 ‘‘(C) LIMITATION.—The maximum amount
10 imposed under this paragraph with respect to
11 any taxpayer shall not exceed 4 times the
12 amount determined under paragraph (2)(D).
13 ‘‘(2) AMOUNT ESTABLISHED.—
14 ‘‘(A) REQUIREMENT TO ESTABLISH.—Not
15 later than June 30 of each calendar year, the
16 Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of
17 Health and Human Services and with the
18 States, shall establish an amount for purposes
19 of paragraph (1).
20 ‘‘(B) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amount es

21 tablished under subparagraph (A) shall be ef

22 fective with respect to the taxable year following
23 the date on which the amount under subpara

24 graph (A) is established.
p. 163
1 ‘‘(C) REQUIRED CONSIDERATION.—Subject
2 to the limitation described in subparagraph (D),
3 in establishing the amount under subparagraph
4 (A), the Secretary shall seek to establish the
5 minimum practicable amount that can accom

6 plish the goal of enhancing participation in
7 qualifying coverage (as so defined).
8 ‘‘(D) LIMITATION.—
9 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Subject to an ad

10 justment under clause (ii), the amount es

11 tablished under this subparagraph is $750.
12 ‘‘(ii) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—Be

13 ginning with taxable years after 2011, the
14 amount described in clause (i) shall be ad

15 justed by the Secretary by notice, pub

16 lished in the Federal Register, for each fis

17 cal year to reflect the total percentage
18 change that occurred in the medical care
19 component of the Consumer Price Index
20 for all urban consumers (all items; U.S.
21 city average) during the preceding calendar
22 year.
23 ‘‘(c) EXEMPTIONS.—Subsection (b) shall not apply to
24 any individual—
p. 164
1 ‘‘(1) with respect to any month if such month
2 occurs during any period in which such individual
3 did not have qualifying coverage (as so defined) for
4 a period of less than 90 days,
5 ‘‘(2) who is a resident of a State that is not a
6 participating State or an establishing State (as such
7 terms are defined in section 3104 of the Public
8 Health Service Act),
9 ‘‘(3) who is an Indian as defined in section 4
10 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act,
11 ‘‘(4) for whom affordable health care coverage
12 is not available (as such terms are defined by the
13 Secretary of Health and Human Services under sec

14 tion 3103 of the Public Health Service Act), or
15 ‘‘(5) described in section 3116(a)(4)(C) of the
16 Public Health Service Act.
17 ‘‘(d) COORDINATION WITH OTHER PROVISIONS.—
18 ‘‘(1) NOT TREATED AS TAX FOR CERTAIN PUR

19 POSES.—The amount imposed by this section shall
20 not be treated as a tax imposed by this chapter for
21 purposes of determining—
22 ‘‘(A) the amount of any credit allowable
23 under this chapter, or
24 ‘‘(B) the amount of the minimum tax im

25 posed by section 55.
p. 165
1 ‘‘(2) TREATMENT UNDER SUBTITLE F.—For
2 purposes of subtitle F, the amount imposed by this
3 section shall be treated as if it were a tax imposed
4 by section 1.
5 ‘‘(3) SECTION 15 NOT TO APPLY.—Section 15
6 shall not apply to the amount imposed by this sec

7 tion.
8 ‘‘(4) SECTION NOT TO AFFECT LIABILITY OF
9 POSSESSIONS, ETC.—This section shall not apply for
10 purposes of determining liability to any possession of
11 the United States. For purposes of section 932 and
12 7654, the amount imposed under this section shall
13 not be treated as a tax imposed by this chapter.
14 ‘‘(e) USES.—Amounts collected under this section
15 shall be dedicated to premium credits established under
16 section 3111 of the Public Health Service Act.
17 ‘‘(f) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary may prescribe
18 such regulations as may be appropriate to carry out the
19 purposes of this section.’’.
20 (2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of
21 parts for subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is
22 amended by adding at the end the following new
23 item:
‘‘PART VIII—SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENTS’’.
p. 166
1 (3) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made
2 by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning
3 after December 31, 2011.

Could you understand much of the extract?

If not, don't worry, neither can the legislators arrogant enough to believe they're qualified to micro-manage the US healthcare industry.

Summary Paragraph

Here's the conceptual language paragraph from the detailed summary of S. 1679 (pdf), summarizing the extract above:

Individual Responsibility. All individuals will be required to obtain health insurance coverage.
Exemptions will also be made for individuals for whom affordable health care coverage is not
available or for those for whom purchasing coverage creates an exceptional financial hardship. The minimum penalty to accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage will be no no more than $750 per year. Individuals deemed to lack availability to affordable coverage (as determined in section 3103), Indians, individuals living in states where Gateways are not yet established, and individuals without coverage for fewer than 90 days are exempt from the penalty. (§ 161, 59B)

Most legislators read the conceptual language summary of the legislation and not the actual bill.

Why? Because they don't understand the legalese. The problem with a summary is that it's written to describe only the intent of the legislation, not necessarily the implementation. Certain details may be selectively omitted. The summary then becomes a subjective document, no longer an accurate portrayal of the legislation.

What's missing in the example above? Section 152 "Voluntary Authorization for Income Verification." It is nowhere in the summary document. Sounds very similar to another part of the same code: our "voluntary compliance" income tax system (video).

What other details from the 839-page legislation were left out of the 25-page summary?