This morning, House Democrats held a press conference to unveil their health care reform bill, which they claim will expand coverage for all and decrease costs. Sounds good, but once you peel away the “feel good” rhetoric, there’s nothing to be excited about. This 2,000-page bill includes a job-killing employer mandate, an individual mandate that requires Washington bureaucrats to define what kind of coverage is acceptable, burdensome tax increases, Medicare cuts, and a huge expansion of Medicaid that will break already strained state budgets.  

You see, the Democrats are playing a game of bait and switch when they talk about the costs of this legislation. For instance, they say that costs will be kept under the arbitrary $900 billion cap that President Obama has requested. Well, they’ll stay under the cap simply by expanding Medicaid eligibility. In other words, they’ll be shifting the costs off one set of taxpayer-funded books to another set of taxpayer-funded books.  And, don’t forget: we just had to bail out those states in large part because their Medicaid budgets were bleeding them dry!

Social Security is broke, Medicare is broke, Medicaid is broke – and all of them were created with the best intentions. But we have to face reality. Our deficit is at an all-time high. Our debt is nearing $12 TRILLION with no signs of slowing. We’re on a crash course for financial ruin. This isn’t conjecture, it’s basic economics.

Republicans have put forth alternative after alternative taking a patient-centered approach -- not focused on government, focused on you -- that will keep costs down, but each and every one of them has fallen on deaf ears. They weren’t even considered by Democrat leadership. Yesterday’s Chicago Tribune did a great job highlighting several of these Republican alternatives that won’t break the bank (a bank that’s already bankrupt).

 As the Tribune points out:

“Let insurers sell policies across state lines. That would loosen the strangling state-by-state regulations and unleash competition to drive premium prices down.”

“Give people who buy insurance in the private market the same tax breaks as those who get it through employers. Now, employers that offer coverage get a tax break on the premiums they pay for employees. And employees don't pay taxes on the value of the coverage they receive. People who want to buy insurance in the individual market should get the same tax breaks. That would help millions of people acquire coverage.”  (That’s what my Health Care Freedom of Choice Act does!)

“Expand the ability of small businesses, trade associations and other groups to set up insurance pools to offer coverage at more attractive rates.”

“Control health costs in part by reining in the medical malpractice system that raises insurance premiums and forces doctors to order tests to protect themselves from lawsuits. Limiting certain kinds of damage awards would reduce spending on health care by about $11 billion in 2009, or about one-half of 1 percent, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. Think about that in human terms: Reform would save millions of patients the expense and trauma of unnecessary tests and procedures.”

As this health care debate plays out, please don’t fall for the rhetoric and take a closer look at what the Democrats’ bill really means. If you do, you’ll realize that it’s a prescription for economic disaster.

To hear the Democrats and most of the mainstream media you would think that Republicans are not bringing any alternatives to the health care debate. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

Back in September during an address to a joint session of Congress, President Obama said his office would always be open to Republicans who wanted to present ideas on health care reform. I wrote the President to present my alternatives and request time with the President to discuss them. I took him at his word that the door was open for honest discussion; but I am still waiting for a reply.

To the contrary, Democrats have shut Republicans out of all discussions on drafting the health care bill.  In fact, the Democrats are being so hyper-partisan that they’ve physically locked Republican members out of a committee room. So much for the era of post-partisanship that the President and Speaker Pelosi promised.

Well, at least the Chicago Tribune is paying attention. Today, they published an editorial: “A GOP health plan.” You see, there’s been no shortage of great ideas offered by Republicans which would give us much needed reform without breaking the bank. In fact, I’ve authored the Health Care Freedom of Choice Act to give people who buy insurance in the private market the same tax breaks as those who get it through their employers. The Tribune actually mentions this as one of several viable solutions for true health care reform.

The fact of the matter is: our country is broke. We’re close to $12 TRILLION in debt, an all-time high, and facing staggering deficits for years to come. Do this Congress and Administration care? Apparently not. While they may give lip service to our perilous economic situation, their actions don’t match their rhetoric. Priority number one in Washington should be getting our fiscal house in order.

UPDATE: It's been almost a month since the Obama Administration slapped a gag order on Medicare insurers preventing them from communicating with their members about how the health reform proposals may affect their coverage. Thankfully, in the wake of criticism from so many of us in Congress, the Obama Administration has finally lifted the ban. 

As the New York Times editorial board said today: 

“The Obama Administration has dropped its ham-handed attempt to stop health insurers from warning buyers of private Medicare Advantage plans that their extra benefits might be cut under pending health care legislation.”

What a great victory for America's seniors!

(Original Post on 9/23/09) If you didn't believe that the President planned on paying for his health care overhaul in part by cutting Medicare, more than $100 billion in cuts, wait until you hear this.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which runs Medicare, has engaged in what can be argued as government intimidation, plain and simple. Remember when the EPA suppressed an internal report that raised questions about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government? They couldn't let a little thing like facts get in the way of passing their cap-and-trade national energy tax.

Well, gangster government is at it again.

According to the House Ways and Means Committee, "the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) initiated an investigation into at least one provider of a Medicare Advantage (MA) health care plan for informing its enrollees that Medicare cuts proposed by the President and congressional Democrats could alter their benefits.  In addition to this investigation, CMS has since banned all MA health plans from providing similar information to beneficiaries."

Congressman Dave Camp, ranking Republican member of the Committee has taken CMS to task for this gag order. Yesterday, he sent a letter to CMS Acting Administrator Charlene Frizzera, noting that, “no such pressure has been applied to those supportive of the President’s Medicare cuts.” 

In fact, the Committee notes, "AARP, which boasts the largest MA plan, for example, has directly communicated with its members via email, a website and letters.  However, AARP’s pro-Medicare cut stance has apparently received no such scrutiny from the Administration.  CMS’ selective use of its regulatory authority, 'threatens the integrity of the agency and of our democracy.'"

Again, another clear example of the government silencing its critics while letting its allies carry on with their business.  About 11 million seniors use Medicare Advantage for their health coverage.  They deserve to know that the burden of paying for the President’s health plan will be on their shoulders.  They deserve some answers, and so do the taxpayers.

If you didn't believe that the President planned on paying for his health care overhaul in part by cutting Medicare, more than $100 billion in cuts, wait until you hear this.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which runs Medicare, has engaged in what can be argued as government intimidation, plain and simple. Remember when the EPA suppressed an internal report that raised questions about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government? They couldn't let a little thing like facts get in the way of passing their cap-and-trade national energy tax.

Well, gangster government is at it again.

According to the House Ways and Means Committee, "the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) initiated an investigation into at least one provider of a Medicare Advantage (MA) health care plan for informing its enrollees that Medicare cuts proposed by the President and congressional Democrats could alter their benefits.  In addition to this investigation, CMS has since banned all MA health plans from providing similar information to beneficiaries."

Congressman Dave Camp, ranking Republican member of the Committee has taken CMS to task for this gag order. Yesterday, he sent a letter to CMS Acting Administrator Charlene Frizzera, noting that, “no such pressure has been applied to those supportive of the President’s Medicare cuts.” 

In fact, the Committee notes, "AARP, which boasts the largest MA plan, for example, has directly communicated with its members via email, a website and letters.  However, AARP’s pro-Medicare cut stance has apparently received no such scrutiny from the Administration.  CMS’ selective use of its regulatory authority, 'threatens the integrity of the agency and of our democracy.'"

Again, another clear example of the government silencing its critics while letting its allies carry on with their business.  About 11 million seniors use Medicare Advantage for their health coverage.  They deserve to know that the burden of paying for the President’s health plan will be on their shoulders.  They deserve some answers, and so do the taxpayers.

In his remarks to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night, President Obama was certainly trying his best to present an image of bipartisanship in working towards health care legislation. Unfortunately, his actions don’t match his words.

It’s been months since he has met with Republican leaders in the House to discuss the commonsense reforms we have brought to the debate.  It’s hard to imagine how this behavior matches his suggestion that he has been working with us to forge bipartisan legislation. In his speech, he said his door will be open to hear our ideas. I hope that’s truly the case because today I am sending a letter to President Obama asking him to consider my Health Care Freedom of Choice Act, among other Republican alternatives such as the Empowering Patients First Act, as part of a solution to our nation’s health care problems.

My legislation puts patients in charge of their health decisions by tweaking the tax code. Under current law, businesses are allowed to deduct the cost of employee health care from their taxes, while individuals and families cannot. This bias in favor of employer-provided coverage leads to higher costs overall and reduces accessibility to care. My legislation would erase this bias and extend the same tax incentives to businesses and individuals alike. From co-pays and premiums to long-term care, vision and dental, your high out-of-pocket costs would no longer be a barrier to care.

Are you really concerned with reaching across the aisle Mr. President, or was it nothing but rhetoric? The American people deserve to know.

Last week, in four different public venues across central Minnesota, I heard firsthand the people’s concerns about the future of their health care. While there was certainly a mixed bag of opinion from every part of the political spectrum, fear of and opposition to a government takeover of our health care system was most evident. And understandably so.

Regardless of your political party or ideology, one thing we can all agree on is that reforms must be made to our health care system. We’ve got top-notch medical professionals and high-quality treatments, but too many Americans can’t access that care because of high costs.  It's important that we do not get lost in the glamour of big overhauls and look past meaningful reforms, like association health plans that let small businesses bond together to reduce coverage costs or health savings accounts that let you save for care tax-free. Bigger is not necessarily better.

On Sunday, the St. Cloud Times published an op-ed I submitted detailing the bipartisan reforms that exist that can make care more accessible and affordable without tearing down the parts of the structure that have worked well for millions of Americans. And, one of the reforms I highlighted was tort reform.  If we want to bring true change to our health care system, one of the most clear-cut ways to do so, and one that has not been given much consideration by the Democrat leadership, is to tamp down on frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits.

Rich Karlgaard with Forbes magazine really lays out the case in a piece he published called: Our Health Care Crisis: Age, Obesity, Lawyers.

"--We are afraid of lawyers. The biggest cost is not malpractice awards, which annually drive up U.S. health care costs by 1% to 2%--$20 billion to $40 billion a year--although that's bad enough. Most costly is the individual doctor's perceived threat of a career-ending malpractice award and his or her incentive, therefore, to practice defensive medicine. This occurs when a doctor, fearing a lawsuit, orders a battery of costly diagnostic tests to rule out the highly improbable, even when the obvious cause of sickness or injury is staring him in the face.

"A Massachusetts Medical Society study discovered that in one year Massachusetts wasted $1.4 billion on defensive medicine. Prorated for the entire U.S. population, the cost would be about $66 billion a year. Another study cited by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons puts the cost of defensive medicine much higher--$100 billion to $178 billion per year. I believe it."

Read More

Like I said in my op-ed, our nation’s deficit and debt are at all-time highs. Medicare and Medicaid are broke. Social Security is broke.
 
Can we really afford to trust Washington when it asks you to entrust them with your health care saying it will not only reduce costs, but increase both accessibility and efficiency for all Americans? Let’s make reforms, yes, but do so in a way that won’t break the bank.

As August winds down, Congress will soon be back in Washington trying to slap together an expensive health care overhaul. And whether it entails a "public option" or "co-op," a government take over of our health care system is simply unacceptable. In fact, the latest news in Washington is that the White House and the Democrat majority are so gung ho about passing health care legislation that they will go forward with what's being called a "nuclear option" with no Republican input.

The American public is demonstrating obvious and sincere concern about what a health care overhaul will entail.  And, it seems to me that shoving legislation down their throats will do very little to assuage those concerns, frustrations and fears.

There are too few shining examples of profitable and efficient government enterprise – take a gander at the failing postal service or struggling Amtrak, for example – for us to entrust the nation’s health care system to Washington’s management and oversight.

Ironically, in trying to make the case that private insurers could compete with a government option, President Obama stated himself that it's the government-backed postal service that's failing.  At a townhall in New Hampshire earlier this month, President Obama stated:

"I mean, if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the post office that's always having problems."

If that's the case, why in the world would we entrust our health care system which accounts for 18% of our nation's economy – not to mention the health and well-being of our loved ones – to the federal government?  They can’t even run a used car exchange program called "Cash for Clunkers" effectively.  They’ve got it so wrapped up in red tape that struggling car dealers can’t tell which end is up any more.

What Americans must be weary of is any legislation that gives more power and oversight to the federal government when it comes to your personal health care decisions. And, we must remember to look at long-term consequences as well.  Some of the changes they are peddling will come quickly.  But, others will come gradually over several months and years – and those are the ones to watch most carefully.

As Newt Gingrich points out:

"The point is not that a health care rationing system … will be implemented in the United States tomorrow.

"The point is that, as in the British system, once government becomes the single payer or even the main payer of health care, what were once intensely personal decisions become public decisions.  And as costs rise, government will look for ways to contain them. 

"The inevitable result of this pressure to control costs will be rationing, whether it occurs during this administration or the next.  At some point, the government will be forced to deny care to those who don’t meet the latest “quality-adjusted life years” cost-benefit analysis.

"So the decision on what treatment to pursue that once would have been made by you and your doctor is now made for you by a bureaucrat using a formula -- a formula to literally determine if your life is worth saving."

Rather than increasing government control, we must reform the health care industry by empowering the American people and giving them control over their health and financial destinies.  Allowing the government to make health care decisions for us is just asking for trouble.

One of the more notable promises from the campaign trail by President Obama back in 2008 was his promise not to raise taxes by one single dime on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. Cap-and-trade and expiring tax cuts aside, it's taken only six months for the President to publicly consider reneging on his campaign pledge.

As the Wall Street Journal points out:

"Asked about raising taxes on the middle class on Sunday on CBS’s 'Face the Nation,' White House economist Larry Summers wouldn’t repeat Mr. Obama’s pre-election promise. 'It is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out no matter what,' Mr. Summers said—except, apparently, when his boss is running for office. Meanwhile, on ABC’s 'This Week,' Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner also slid around Mr. Obama’s vow and said, 'We have to bring these deficits down very dramatically. And that’s going to require some very hard choices.'

"These aren’t even nondenial denials. The Obama advisers are laying the groundwork for taxing the middle class while claiming the deficit made them do it."

It must also be noted that Democrats have already raised the cigarette tax and the House has passed a cap-and-trade bill at the President's urging that will directly raise the costs Americans pay for their energy. But perhaps worst of all is a proposal being floated directly by the Obama Administration of a value added tax (VAT).

"So waiting in the wings is the biggest middle-class tax increase of them all: a European-style value added tax, or VAT. This tax would apply to every level of production or service, and it is beloved by politicians in Europe because it raises so much money so easily without voters noticing. Ezekiel Emanuel, a White House aide and brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has advocated a 10% VAT to finance national health care. Look for a VAT to be one of the prominent options when Mr. Obama’s tax reform commission issues its report later this year."

At the end of the day, someone has to pay for the President's health care overhaul, and sadly it's looking more and more that it will be middle-class America picking up the tab.

There's no way around it - support for the so-called "public option" in health care is flat lining. So now we're hearing from the Senate about a "consumer cooperative" or "co-op" as an alternative to the government plan.

However as the Heritage Foundation notes, if this “co-op” is not run and controlled directly by consumers, then it's simply a government-plan under a different name.

"If by health care 'co-op' Congress means allowing private associations to collectively buy health insurance for their members or operate a health insurance exchange, or allowing people to buy health insurance from a non-profit, member-owned private insurer, then those would be positive, pro-consumer developments.

"However, simply slapping the word 'cooperative' onto a new 'insurer,' but then specifying that the government — not the policyholders — picks the board of directors (as Sen. Schumer wants), or that taxpayers will subsidize it, or that it has to pay doctors and hospitals at Medicare rates, would just be an exercise in trying to disguise a 'public plan.'"

The American people won't be sold by smoke and mirrors. There's too much at stake here. And while it's not clear that the President and many Members of Congress are reading the bills, the people are.

One of the hot points of contention throughout the health care debate has been whether coverage will extend to illegal immigrants.

Roll Call reports that last Friday, leaders of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) met with Speaker Pelosi to "reiterate that illegal immigrants should be covered under health care reform legislation" that comes out of the House.

"Asked if CHC leaders will ask Pelosi to specifically spell something out in the bill to address illegal immigrants, [one] Member said no. Rather, the Member said the CHC simply wants to make sure the bill — as drafted — doesn’t prohibit illegal immigrants from accessing care. 'Sometimes if you don’t say something, something happens,' said the Hispanic lawmaker."

Interesting. Especially when you put it in the context of the House Ways and Means Committee's party-line vote to reject a commonsense amendment that would have ensured that illegal immigrants are not covered. The amendment, offered by Nevada Republican Dean Heller, would have simply required that the same citizenship verification mechanisms used to screen welfare recipients be used to screen health benefits recipients.

The relationship between illegal immigrants and our nation's health care system is one that cannot be overlooked. In 2006, the Census Bureau reported that there were 46.6 million people without health insurance of which about 9.5 million were not United States citizens. The expense of illegal immigrants' health care in California, for instance, has become so unbearable that many municipalities had to eliminate this benefit to save tens of millions of dollars. Texas estimates that illegal immigrants cost hospitals there $1.3 billion in 2006 alone.

It's clear that a bill that is silent on eligibility means a bill that includes illegal immigrants.

Betsy McCaughey, founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former New York lieutenant governor has blown the lid off of President Obama's vision of health care reform, revealing the real life ramifications of how one's age and level of ability will determine the kind of care and treatment they receive. To be blunt, the ramifications for senior citizens, the disabled, and the very sick are downright damning.

"THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the decisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.

"Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.

"Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

"Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. 'Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change,' he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

"Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, 'as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others' (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

"Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

"Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

"Emanuel, however, believes that 'communitarianism' should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those 'who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia' (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

"Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

"He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: 'Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years' (Lancet, Jan. 31)."

Continue reading at the New York Post website

Yesterday, as the House Energy and Commerce Committee marked-up the Democrat's proposed health care reform legislation, Democrats made it clear that they are more than willing to put a Washington bureaucrat between you and your doctor.

Congressman Phil Gingrey (R-GA), a former ob-gyn who practiced for 26 years before being elected to Congress and a member of the Committee, offered an amendment that would prevent government bureaucrats at the proposed Center for Quality Improvement from dictating to physicians what treatments they can or can't offer.

As Committee Republicans have noted, "in the Democrat's legislation, the Center is tasked with determining what treatments and procedures are most cost effective. This manner of government sponsored research, in conjunction with the new Federal crowd-out health plan would represent the first step towards implementing a policy of bureaucrat health care rationing."

Rep. Gingrey's commonsense amendment was defeated by an almost straight party-line vote, with only one Democrat voting with all the Republicans.

Democrats also rejected another amendment that would have allowed state governments to decide what kind of insurance coverage to offer public employees.  So Minnesotans don’t want their state to pay for abortion services for state or local employees?  Republicans can respect that.  Democrats, on the other hand, want DC to dictate the very specifics of all these health care plans – and if states refuse, they’d have their funding withheld. 

As Congressman Henry Waxman, Chairman of the Committee, stated, ““We can’t tell states what to do directly.  We have to use whatever leverage we have over them.”

This is the point to their health care proposal?  Putting government right in the middle of the health decisions that should be made by you and your doctor? This is wrong, and not the path our nation should be following.

In just the past few months, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed some of the most unprecedented pieces of legislation in our nation’s history – changing the course of our nation’s policy dramatically. June brought us the cap-and-trade national energy tax, and July may very well bring a dangerous overhaul to our nation’s health care system in the form of the so-called “government option.”

With issues of this magnitude, it is not only prudent, but incumbent upon each Member of Congress to know precisely what is in a piece of legislation before it’s voted on. This seems elementary and Congress 101 – but believe me – it doesn’t always happen. That’s why I have signed the Let Freedom Ring Health Care Reform Pledge that obligates the signee to oppose any health care proposal a Member has not read and that has not been publicly available for at least 72 hours before it is voted on by Congress.

With an issue as big as the government take-over of our health care system, every single Member of Congress better know what they’re voting on. They say the devil is usually in the details; and a 1000-page bill has a lot of details.  Americans can not afford to let a crushing, big government proposal pass the House without proper oversight and review.

Here’s the harsh reality of what’s facing our nation. Since the recession began, 6,000,000 jobs have been lost.  Yet the Democrats’ health care plan includes hundreds of billions of dollars in new tax hikes on small businesses – our country’s job creation engine. And, despite claims their reform will reduce health care costs, CBO Director Elmendorf told Congress that the Democrats’ proposed reform will only INCREASE future federal spending on health care. Furthermore, an independent analysis by the non-partisan Lewin Group found that 114 million Americans would lose their current health insurance.

Earlier this year I reintroduced the Health Care Freedom of Choice Act, a bill that would improve America’s flawed health care model by increasing patient choice, lowering costs and breaking down barriers that restrict access to care. Under current law, businesses are allowed to deduct the cost of employee health care from their taxes, while individuals and families who purchase health care cannot take the same deductions. This bias against individual choice leads to higher health care costs and reduces accessibility to care. My legislation would erase this bias and extend the same tax incentives to businesses and individuals alike. This would not only make health care more affordable for those who purchase it themselves, but by injecting choice and competition into the health care market it would lower prices for all Americans.

Republicans want to expand access to affordable health care and give families the freedom to choose the health care that fits their needs – without imposing a job-killing tax hike on small businesses and working families. From what we’ve seen from the Democrats – they want to take those choices away.

Yesterday, I came across a great piece in Investor's Business Daily about how the House Democrats' Health Care Reform bill released earlier this week would mark the end of individual private medical insurance if signed into law.

I've posted a part of it for you below, and I encourage you to read the entire piece. The bill as it's written would kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the government option becomes law.

As I've mentioned in previous posts, Republicans want to expand access to affordable health care and give families the freedom to choose the health care that fits their needs – without imposing a job-killing tax hike on small businesses and working families. From what we’ve seen from the Democrats – they want to take those choices away.

It's Not An Option

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

Read More

You would think that any health care bill brought forth in Congress would actually be focused on reforming health care. Alas, it seems that both House and Senate proposals are packed with pork as well.

As the Boston Globe has reported, tucked into bills in both chambers are provisions funding what Senator Ted Kennedy’s staff calls “Community Transformation Grants.”  Essentially, we’re talking about federal funding for bike paths, lighting, jungle gyms, and even farmers markets.

In the House bill, at least the spending is capped -- $1.6 billion per year.  The Senate bill leaves the sky the limit – leaving the amount of spending up to the Obama Administration.

While these projects may have merit, they certainly don't belong in a health care reform package.  With priorities like this running amok on Capitol Hill, is there any doubt that health care costs will only continue to skyrocket under government-run health care?