This past Sunday Sen. DeMint joined Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) to discuss the political future of their respective parties following Scott Brown's victory in the Massachusetts Senate race on ABC News' "This Week."
The full Senate returns from its holiday recess this week and the health care debate between the House and Senate will continue. Democratic leadership from both Houses of Congress have been meeting since the Senate passed its own version of the health care bill just before Christmas. Leadership is doing their best to reconcile the wishes of both House and Senate Democrats in hope of keeping both sides on board for a final vote before sending the final version to President Obama's desk for signing.
With the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's Senate seat up for grabs, Democrats are considering various options to get the bill to the president. Even if Democrats retain Kennedy's seat there is concern that some Democrats are having second thoughts about supporting the bill. Reports The New York Times:
It is unclear if rank-and-file Democrats would go along, and House Democratic leaders said no final decision would be made until they talked to their caucus.
But even as Democratic leaders pondered contingencies, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, insisted that the legislation would move forward, though she acknowledged that Tuesday’s results could force a tactical shift...
In an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) explains that just because the "public option" has been removed from the health care takeover bill being considered in the Senate doesn't mean Americans shouldn't worry about rationing and shorter lifespans under the Reid-Obama plan. Dr. Coburn has practiced medicine for over 25 years so he knows what he is talking about. Here's in the intro:
I recently suggested that seniors will die sooner if Congress actually implements the Medicare cuts in the health-care bill put forward by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. My colleagues who defend the bill -- none of whom have practiced medicine -- predictably dismissed my concern as a scare tactic. They are wrong. Every American, not just seniors, should know that the rationing provisions in the Reid bill will not only reduce their quality of life, but their life spans as well.
My 25 years as a practicing physician have shown me what happens when government attempts to practice medicine: Doctors respond to government coercion instead of patient cues, and patients die prematurely. Even if the public option is eliminated from the bill, these onerous rationing provisions will remain intact.
For instance, the Reid bill (in sections 3403 and 2021) explicitly empowers Medicare to deny treatment based on cost. An Independent Medicare Advisory Board created by the bill—composed of permanent, unelected and, therefore, unaccountable members—will greatly expand the rationing practices that already occur in the program. Medicare, for example, has limited cancer patients' access to Epogen, a costly but vital drug that stimulates red blood cell production. It has limited the use of virtual, and safer, colonoscopies due to cost concerns. And Medicare refuses medical claims at twice the rate of the largest private insurers...
Yesterday, the Obama Administration’s own chief actuary issued a report on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009,” noting that health care costs would increase under the Democrat Majority’s health proposal.
According to the report, the Reid-Pelosi-Obama health care bill could increase health care costs for all Americans, threaten access to care for seniors, and force nearly 20 million Americans off of their current coverage.
Under the Democrats’ proposal, national health spending would increase from 16 percent of GDP now (1 out of every 7 dollars) to 20.9 percent under the Reid bill (more than 1 out of every 5 dollars). In fact, the chief actuary concluded that the federal government and the country would spend $234 billion more under the bill than without it. In addition, the report notes that seniors could face significant decreases in access to providers who might find the severe cuts to Medicare under this bill enough to end their willingness to accept Medicare patients. Finally, the report found that 17 million Americans will lose their employer-sponsored coverage, with even more small employers “inclined to terminate their existing coverage.”
The president promised Americans during his run for the White House that if they liked their current coverage they would get to keep it -- sounds like his campaign rhetoric isn’t matching the reality of the Democrat Majority’s proposals.
Sen. DeMint voices opposition to the Reid-Obama health care takeover bill that will raise insurance premiums, raise taxes, fund abortions, increase the national debt, kill jobs, cut Medicare benefits and lead to government-rationed care. On Friday, DeMint took the time highlight just a few of the many issues with the bill.
Debate has officially begun on the Reid-Obama health care takeover in the U.S. Senate. So far only two amendments have been cleared to bring to the floor. One is an amendment offered by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) to force insurance companies to provide women with free “preventive care” (a.k.a., federally funded abortions) and one is an amendment being offered by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that would remove the $400 million in Medicare cuts contained in the bill. The National Right to Life Committee sent a letter to senators yesterday voicing opposition to the Mikulski bill as it is currently written.
Plans for the rest of the week remain vague. It is likely more amendments will be cleared and voted upon from both sides of the aisle in attempt to improve the bill. However, a bill that spends $2.5 trillion in just the first 10 years and overhauls the entire U.S. health care system can't be fixed with a few amendments. As Sen. DeMint said on the night the Senate voted to consider the amendment:
The Reid-Obama health care takeover is an irredeemable disaster that cannot be fixed with a few amendments, because it is rotten to its core. Every senator that voted 'yes' tonight voted to support a bill that will raise insurance premiums, raise taxes, fund abortions, explode our debt, kill jobs, cut Medicare benefits and lead to government-rationed care...
Recently, The Wall Street Journal looked into how the Reid-Obama health care takeover bill will kill consumer-driven health care. The bill would go after HSAs and flex spending accounts, both of which liberals loathe because of the options and freedom they give consumers looking to tailor their health care expenses to their personal needs and wants.
Start with its attack on flexible spending accounts that are an important part of many employer plans. Flex accounts let employees set aside some portion of their pre-tax pay for out-of-pocket costs or medical services that their insurance plan doesn't cover, such as a child's orthodontics or testing supplies for diabetics. The Reid bill caps these now-unlimited accounts at $2,500 per year and imposes new restrictions on qualifying medical expenses, raising some $5 billion by exposing income above the non-indexed cap to taxes.
Democrats say flex accounts encourage wasteful spending, because an arbitrary "use it or lose it" rule doesn't allow balances to roll over year to year. But they really hate them because they give consumers a more active role in managing spending, instead of having the government decide.
The Reid bill also assaults health savings accounts, or HSAs, which allow individuals to accumulate tax-free funds for future medical expenses when coupled with low-premium, high-deductible insurance. The Reid bill changes tax provisions to make HSAs less attractive, but the real threat comes via increased regulation.
These insurance products will likely be barred from the insurance "exchanges" that will demolish and supplant today's individual market. Employers will also find them more difficult if not illegal to offer once the government has new powers to "define the essential health benefits" that all plans must eventually offer. Plans that focus mainly on catastrophic health expenses, instead of routine procedures, aren't generous enough for Democrats...
[Originally posted on Wednesday, Nov. 18, at RedState.com. Vote has now been schedule for 8 p.m. Saturday, Nov. 21]
A defining moment is coming in this year’s health care debate.
Yesterday, Democrat leaders announced they may soon bring Harry Reid’s new health care bill to the Senate floor in an effort to grant the President’s wish for a government takeover of our nation’s health care by Christmas. This is in spite of the fact that 99 senators have never seen Reid’s new bill that was written in secret. Reid even hinted he may rush to a vote before the bill’s been public for 72 hours, as even Democrats have demanded.
To begin debate on this new version of Obamacare, Reid will play a shell game. He needs 60 senators to “vote to proceed” to an unrelated piece of legislation, and once he clears that hurdle he will strike that bill’s text and insert his new health care bill. But don’t be fooled by senators that will say they oppose a government takeover but just wanted to allow debate on health care, they are not being honest.
The simple fact is this: Any senator that votes to proceed to the Reid-Obama bill is voting for a government takeover of health care...
Late Wednesday night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) released his own version of a health care bill that if passed will raise taxes, increase premiums, cut Medicare and lead to health care rationing. It's imperative that freedom-loving Americans everywhere raise their voices in opposition to this bill. It truly represents a government takeover of health care.