ObamaCare’s Birth Control Mandate: Contraception is Not Free

Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org.

Nearly two years after ObamaCare was signed into law, we are still finding out what was really in the 2,801 page bill. Many are shocked to find out that the intrusive law contains a provision that forces all employers to provide “free” birth control to all female employees by August 2013. Of course, there’s no such thing as a free lunch or free contraception in this instance. Most conservative bloggers have primarily focused on how the birth control requirement violates freedom of religion but it’s important to examine the mandate from an economic standpoint as well.

All of us should remember the old adage that goes “if one can frame the debate, one wins the debate.” Without fully realizing it, libertarians and fiscal conservatives all too often allow the left to frame the debate. The left has framed the birth control mandate debate as a battle between pro- and anti-birth control advocates. Leftist political pundit Rachel Maddow has claimed that the GOP is declaring a “war on birth control.” But that is entirely misleading; the real debate is between individual rights vs. government force.

Those opposed to the mandate are not necessarily against birth control. Some are but many are not. The left often accuses libertarians and fiscal conservatives of being opposed to a certain good or service just because we do not want it provided or mandated by the government. This intellectually dishonest debate tactic has been used for centuries in attempts to discredit free market supporters.

As Frédéric Bastiat wrote in his timeless book The Law, “socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

These accusations are far from the truth. True free market supporters believe that all economic activity should be voluntary for everyone. This means that individuals should be free to buy, sell and produce whatever good they desire without government coercion. Forcing employers to provide “free” birth control coverage violates the principles of a free and peaceful society. No one would be legally forced to provide or buy a product that offends their personal beliefs and values in a pure free market economy.

The birth control mandate debate has centered around religious freedom but its likely unintended economic consequences should not be ignored. The mandate has moral hazard written all over it. Moral hazard occurs when people change their behavior when they are insulated from the real cost of their actions. Women are less likely to carefully consider their birth control options if they are getting it for “free.” As economist Peter Schiff says, “when women are buying their own birth control, they are shopping around. The price is a consideration. When they get it for ‘free’, price is no consideration.” Women will be more inclined to take the most expensive birth control option regardless if it makes the most sense.

This means that the mandate will ultimately increase the price of contraception. Peter Schiff further explains that “the problem is when you get something for free, behavior changes. People use things a lot more when they are free and you drive up the cost.” The economic reality is that there is a cost to everything. No matter how well-intentioned government legislation may be, it simply cannot repeal the law of scarcity. Birth control will never be free.

Insurance company Blue Cross has unofficially announced that it would cost $2.8 billion to cover contraception. This cost will eventually be passed onto all consumers in the form of higher insurance premiums. It reminds me of the popular P.J. O’Rourke quote, “if you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it cost when it’s free.” Just replace “health care” with “birth control” in that quote.

Another unintended consequence associated with the birth control mandate is that it could lead to gender discrimination in the hiring process. It will cost employers more money to hire women since they are forced to provide them with contraceptive coverage. Employers are not required to provide men with additional coverage. The cost of employing a woman will increase whether she wants birth control or not. The supposedly well-intentioned law will actually end up hurting women.

The birth control mandate not only violates freedom of religion but it will drive up the price of contraception and may lead to female discrimination. This is just one more reason why we need to get the government out of health care in order to allow the free market to flourish.

Please check out the Peter Schiff video on the birth control mandate below:

Elena Kagan Must Recuse Herself from ObamaCare Case

After several federal judges have declared ObamaCare unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has finally decided that it will hear challenges to the health care overhaul law. This could be one of the most closely watched and politically charged Supreme Court case in the past few decades. While I hope that the nation’s highest court makes the correct decision regarding ObamaCare, we shouldn’t automatically trust the justices to uphold the Constitution.

We all know that the Constitution grants very few powers to the federal government. Only about thirty enumerated powers are listed throughout the entire document. Our founding document clearly prohibits the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase a product simply because they exist. Almost everything that Congress does is not within bounds of the Constitution yet the Supreme Court rarely ever strikes down a law as unconstitutional. Between the years 1937 to 1995, the Supreme Court did not declare one single law unconstitutional according to the Tenth Amendment Center. This is exactly what Thomas Jefferson feared.

Jefferson warned that if the federal government has a monopoly on determining the extent of its own powers, these powers would continue to grow regardless of separation of powers. This is why James Madison declared that states were “duty bound to resist” any federal law that violated the Constitution. A majority of the states have pushed back against the health care overhaul law. The recent passage of Issue 3 also known as the Ohio Healthcare Freedom Amendment is a win for the states against federal abuse.

The main point is just because ObamaCare is unconstitutional doesn’t mean the Supreme Court will rule it so. Some justices more than others have shown that they are not interested in upholding our founding document. They wrongly see it as a “living document” that can be interpreted as they please based on the political whims of the day. Their dangerous philosophy has essentially rendered the Constitution pointless. As historian Kevin Gutzman says, “those who give us a living Constitution are actually giving us a dead Constitution, since such a thing is completely unable to protect us from the encroachments of government power.”

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan made it clear that she sees almost no limits to federal power in her confirmation hearing last summer. She was even unable to answer a question on whether it is constitutional for the federal government to force citizens to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day. Knowing what we are up against, is there anything we can do to help ensure that the Supreme Court makes the right decision? I would say that the best thing we can do is to call on Justice Elena Kagan recuse herself—abstain from participating from the case—due to a conflict of interest.

Elena Kagan as Solicitor General for the Obama administration claims she was present at “at least one” meeting regarding strategy for the defense of ObamaCare. The Judicial Crisis Network has made the case that her involvement is much more substantial than she is admitting. Emails obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that she cheered on the passage of ObamaCare in a number of emails. On March 21, 2010, an email was exchanged between Kagan and then-Senior Counselor for Access Justice Laurence Tribe. Kagan writes “I hear they have the votes!! Simply amazing…” and Tribe responds “So healthcare is basically done! Remarkable.”

Elena Kagan should recuse herself from the case as matter of integrity. She has recused herself from 29 of 82 Supreme Court cases because of her previous work as Solicitor General. The ObamaCare case should be no exception. Section 455 of Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) states that “any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I believe that calling the passage of ObamaCare “simply amazing” and using double exclamation points implies a bit (okay, a lot) of partiality.

Let’s hope that the Supreme Court actually stands up for the original intent of the Constitution. Justice Elena Kagan is not a defender of our constitutional rights; she is a partisan cheerleader for ObamaCare. Regardless of what the Supreme Court happens to rule next June, ObamaCare is a clear violation of the Constitution and should be immediately repealed for the sake of our health care freedom.

Unintended Consequences of ObamaCare Keep Rolling In

Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org.

The “pesky” law of unintended consequences strikes again. Do you remember when President Obama said “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it”? Just as we expected, ObamaCare will not live up to its grand promises. According to a recent National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) report, one in eight small businesses have had or expect to have their health insurance plans terminated since the passage of ObamaCare in March 2010. This is likely just the tip of the iceberg since the 2,801-page health care takeover law will not be fully implemented until 2014.

The unintended consequences of ObamaCare keep rolling in. Insurance prices are skyrocketing, major health insurers have stopped offering child-only policies and we may soon be facing a huge doctor shortage. It comes as no big surprise that health care law will end up costing more than originally thought. A new report from Cornell economist Richard Burkhauser and his colleagues warns that ObamaCare could cost at least $50 billion more per year than previous Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates.

Government has an extensive history of under-calculating the long-term cost of legislation. For example, in 1967, House Ways and Means predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990. The actual spending in 1990 was $110 billion. Medicare now costs taxpayers over $314 billion annually. In the case of Medicare, the government estimate was off by over 816 percent. How wrong was the CBO on the cost of ObamaCare? I’d rather not find out.

Many politicians seem to believe that they can repeal the laws of economics. As economist Thomas Sowell says, “the first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.” Most government policies actually worsen the exact same problem they were supposedly trying to cure. As Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) states “free market economics teaches that for every government action to solve an economic problem, two new ones are created.” It’s a never-ending cycle of politicians passing bad laws to “fix” problems that were created by government in the first place.

While there are an abundance of problems associated with ObamaCare, perhaps the most troubling is the philosophical problem. Most politicians –and unfortunately many Americans—believe that health care is a right. This is a perversion of the idea of rights. As the Declaration of Independence states, Americans have the unalienable right to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Note that none of these things require anything of anybody else.

Health care does require something from someone else. It either requires time from a doctor or nurse or money from someone to pay for such services. The government has no wealth of its own. Every dime that the government redistributes was first forcibly taken away from a taxpayer. Politicians like to consider themselves “compassionate” for supporting wealth redistribution plans such as ObamaCare. But spending other people’s money is not compassionate. As Austrian economist Murray Rothbard said, “it is easy to be conspicuously ‘compassionate’ if others are being forced to pay the cost.”

We are not entitled to health care. Economics professor Walter Williams writes that “true rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another… For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else’s rights, namely their rights to their earnings.” Where’s the compassion for taxpayers—who are forced to foot the bill?

Of course, most individuals who oppose ObamaCare are not “evil” as some supporters have claimed. We are not insensitive to the poor and needy. In fact, conservatives are more likely to donate to charities than liberals (no statistics found on libertarians). Arthur Brooks, author of the book Who Really Cares, says that “you find that people who believe it’s the government’s job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away.” Genuine compassion is when you reach into your own pockets to help out the less fortunate. Reaching into other people’s pockets and forcing them to pay for compulsory government programs is false philanthropy and should not be considered noble.

We must repeal ObamaCare and restore a free market in healthcare.  No matter how well-intentioned government legislation may be, it simply cannot repeal the law of scarcity. We can complain about the alleged unfairness of reality, but the fact is that medical care will always be a scarce good. Government meddling in the health care market will only lead to ugly unintended consequences. We instead should seek to get the government out of the way and let the free market function for once.

Opt Out of Entitlement Programs

Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org.

Entitlement programs are on the fast track to bankruptcy. Social Security and Medicare—the nation’s two largest entitlement programs—will run out of funds sooner than previously expected. Social Security faces a $45 billion deficit this year and Medicare’s trust fund for hospital insurance will completely run out of funds by 2024. We must face the reality that the federal government simply won’t be able to keep its grand promises to future generations without drastic changes to our entitlement system.

Some claim that our entitlement programs suffer from a demographic problem. It’s true that people are living for a much longer period of time. When the Social Security Act of 1935 passed, the average life expectancy was only 60 years. Despite the fact that the average life expectancy has soared to 77.5 years, the Social Security retirement age of 65 has never been adjusted to meet demographic changes. This means that the number of retirees is growing faster than the number of new workers. The ratio of workers to retirees has grown from 42 to 1 in 1940 to just 3.3 to 1 today. The current demographic trends are unsustainable.

Everyone paying attention knows that entitlement programs are in trouble. The numbers prove this fact but it is more than just an accounting problem. The underlying problem is a philosophical one. The role of government is not to “take care” of Americans from cradle to grave. Our Founding Fathers warned us against an “all-knowing” nanny state that would erode our personal liberties. As the late Barry Goldwater said “remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything that you have.” The proper role of the government as outlined in the Constitution is solely to protect life, liberty and property.

Young people have the largest stake in our broke entitlement system. These workers are forced to pay Social Security payroll taxes knowing full well that they will likely never collect Social Security benefits in their lifetime. By the time college aged students retire, there will be only two workers for each beneficiary. Even former President Clinton said that “there are polls that say that young people in their twenties think it’s more likely that they will see UFOs than that they will ever collect Social Security.” This is the reason that the 18 to 29 year old age group is the most receptive to making changes to Social Security.

Most in Washington have chosen to kick the can down the road. Time and time again lawmakers have denied that our entitlements programs are in trouble. Cutting benefits or raising taxes is politically unpopular. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) deserves credit for introducing bold proposals to reform Social Security and Medicare in his “Roadmap for America” plan. His Medicare plan also in his most recent “Path to Prosperity” plan, which has been endorsed by a majority of his fellow House Members, would transform Medicare form a misguided “one-size-fits-all” program into a patient-centered system that allows seniors to choose from a list of competing health plans. It may not be ideal, but it’s a step in the right direction.

Let’s take it a step further. Why aren’t we allowed to opt-out of these compulsory entitlement programs? If they are so “great”, why are they mandatory? Individuals should have the freedom to buy their own health insurance after the age of 65 or save for their own retirement without government assistance if they wish. It’s their hard earned money; it does not belong to the federal government. No one should have to fear that the government will ultimately ration their retirement savings. It would be morally inexcusable to force generations to pay into our broke entitlement system and ultimately get nothing in return.

Many Americans still believe in the ideas of personal liberty and self-sufficiency that our forefathers fought for. Let’s give them the freedom to opt of our nanny state entitlement system altogether. Would anyone actually stay in a terribly mismanaged government monopoly? It’s pretty clear: freedom works, government doesn’t.

States Seek to Nullify ObamaCare

Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org.

Our Founding Fathers set out to create the freest nation known to man. These brave men rejected the tyrannical rule of King George III by signing the Declaration of Independence. Since these founding days, America has had a tradition of anti-government skepticism. The Founders later wrote the Bill of Rights which lists our natural rights in order to set limitations on the power of the United States federal government. They ultimately envisioned a limited constitutional republic that respects individual rights.

America was founded on the principle of federalism. The so-called anti-federalists who pushed for a Bill of Rights strongly believed in a decentralized government where power was divided between federal and state governments. The tenth amendment clearly reads, “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This simply means that any issue not found in the U.S. Constitution should be left up to individual states to decide. Truth is that the federal government only has about thirty enumerated powers delegated to it in the Constitution.

Nearly 250 years later, the United States has gone grossly astray from the Founding Father’s vision. The federal government is involved in nearly every aspect of our daily lives from what foods we put into our bodies to what we’re allowed to watch on television. We have elected officials in Washington such as Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) who claims that “the federal government can do most anything in this country.” Even though former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took an oath to defend the Constitution, she asked a reporter if he was serious when he asked where specifically the Constitution grants Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate.

The reality is Congress violates the Constitution virtually every day while in session. Both parties are to blame. Many states are fed up and are fighting back against unconstitutional federal laws such as ObamaCare. With a Democratic-controlled Senate and President Obama still in the White House, it will prove an arduous task to get ObamaCare repealed through congressional action in Washington, D.C. anytime soon. As it currently stands, a total of 27 states have filed suit against ObamaCare. Thus far, two federal judges have upheld ObamaCare’s individual mandate to purchase health insurance while two others have ruled it unconstitutional. The individual health mandate is clearly unconstitutional. Just as the anti-federalists feared, many people have misinterpreted the commerce clause in the Constitution to justify expansion of federal power at the expense of the states. The original intent of the commerce clause was to promote trade and exchange between states. It was surely never meant to force individuals to buy health insurance simply because they exist.

It’s promising that the number of state lawsuits to overturn ObamaCare is increasing. The Supreme Court recently rejected Virginia’s attorney general Ken Cuccinelli request for an expedited review of his challenge to ObamaCare. It’s difficult to predict what the federal justices would ultimately rule if ObamaCare eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. Historian and author of Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, Dr. Tom Woods writes that the “If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions’ authors (Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively), it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power.” There is a conflict of interest with the federal court arbitrating disputes between the states and the federal government over the constitutionality of the federal government’s action.  Just like Jefferson feared, the Supreme Court has a history of siding with the federal government instead of the states. The unfortunate truth is that the Supreme Court has upheld many unconstitutional federal laws. As Andrew Nappi of the Florida Tenth Amendment Center says “this would be like having your ex’s mother as the final judge on the structure of your divorce settlement.”

Various states are taking another approach to defeat ObamaCare. These states are considering the idea of nullification. Idaho Governor Otter recently said “we are actively exploring all our options – including nullification.” State nullification is the idea that states can refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both spoke of the favor of nullification. In 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote “whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers….a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” Likewise, James Madison said that states were “duty bound to resist” every time the federal government violated the Constitution.

Some states aren’t waiting for the outcomes of federal lawsuits in federal courts. They’re simultaneously attempting to make ObamaCare void in their state legislatures. According to the Tenth Amendment Center, “nullification is a tool in the bag of those who want to dam the river of government expansion. It has been used before, and to good ends.” Thus far, 12 states have introduced similar versions to the Federal Health Care Nullification Act drafted by the Tenth Amendment Center this year. These bills either fully nullify or refuse compliance with ObamaCare. The Federal Health Care Nullification Act introduced in Texas (HB297), Montana (SB161), Wyoming (HB0035), Oregon (HB498) and Maine (LD558) all state that ObamaCare is  “hereby declared to be invalid, shall not be recognized, is specifically rejected, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect.” Idaho recently passed HB 298 which is nicknamed the “grandson of nullification.”

The 10th amendment is making a roaring comeback. Nullification has recently been used to stop federal gun laws, the Real ID and federal drug laws. Five states have introduced bills to nullify any legislation from the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) regulating greenhouse gases and the “Food Safety and Modernization Act.” In his book, Tom Woods explains that nullification has been used throughout history to support free speech, free trade and unconstitutional searches and seizures. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin used nullification to declare the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 unconstitutional.

The federal government has overstepped its constitutional limits. We can put an end to the federal government takeover of our healthcare system and other unconstitutional federal initiatives. With so many states fighting back against ObamaCare, it should send a clear message to the Obama administration. We the people do not want ObamaCare forced upon us.

ObamaCare One Year Later: Majority of Americans Still Oppose Unconstitutional Law

Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org.

Most of us are likely to remember where we were when a national tragedy happened. As for me, I’ll always remember where I was when I heard that ObamaCare had passed the House of Representatives and was headed for President Obama’s desk. On March 21, 2010, I was sitting in the back of a crammed pickup truck from Kentucky en route to my home state of Maryland. A group of us decided to drive over nine hours to spend our entire college spring break campaigning for a long-shot senate candidate by the name of Rand Paul. During our days of walking door to door in Louisville, we met many people who expressed outrage over the proposed government takeover of our health care system.

As we sat in the back of a pickup truck listening to the final hours of the House ObamaCare debate on C-SPAN radio, it was clear that Washington didn’t get it. They were ramming through an unpopular health care reform law without consulting the American people. I thought of the elderly Kentucky man I met who shook my hand after telling me that ObamaCare made him fear for the future of his grandkids and his beloved country. It was a somber long drive home as we felt helpless to big government. When Nancy Pelosi successfully passed the 2,801 page ObamaCare bill around midnight, I was reminded of the Star Wars quote “so this is how liberty dies with thunderous applause.”

Two days later, ObamaCare was signed into law against the will of the majority of Americans. At the FreedomWorks office, my phone rang off the hook with people asking what they could do to get involved. Some of them told me that they had never been involved in politics before but they wanted to let their voices be heard. They gave me immense hope that the fight still wasn’t over. A Rasmussen poll released that week showed that 55 percent of Americans favored repeal of ObamaCare.

It’s been a grueling battle. Government health care officials told us that we would soon embrace the new health care law. A year later, support for ObamaCare repeal hasn’t died down. The newest Rasmussen poll shows that 53 percent of likely voters still support ObamaCare repeal with 43 percent strongly favoring it. One of the continuous messages at Tea Party rallies across the nation is to stop the government takeover of health care.

Even in its early stages of implementation, ObamaCare has already done damage to our economy and way of life. Due to a provision that insurance companies must charge the same rates for healthy and costly sick children, nearly every major insurance company has ceased offering child-only policies. Employer penalties in the law have led some major companies such as 3M to stop offering health benefits to retirees and low-income workers unless they are granted an exemption by HHS. Since December, two federal district judges, in Virginia and Florida, have declared Obamacare’s individual mandate requiring all U.S. residents to purchase health insurance to be unconstitutional.

We cannot afford this unconstitutional power grab. The health care law will cost $2.6 trillion during its first 10 years of full implementation. Ultimately, it will create 159 new bureaucracies to control our health care.  By 2016, CBO predicts the average price of privately purchased insurance will be 27 to 30 percent higher for all Americans. Struggling American families will have to pay an average of $2,100 more for coverage. Even Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz who was originally a huge supporter of ObamaCare recently stated that “I think as the bill is currently written and if it was going to land in 2014 under the current guidelines, the pressure on small businesses, because of the mandate, is too great.”

On November 2nd, the American people’s voice was heard at the ballot box. A total of 35 Democrats who supported ObamaCare were defeated. This has increased the opposition to ObamaCare in the House by nearly 16 percent. While the fight may be far from over, we can get this unconstitutional government takeover repealed through hard work and determination. We won’t stop until the repeal bill lands on President Obama’s desk. It may be a year later but our voices are louder than ever. Let’s make sure that ObamaCare doesn’t get a second anniversary.

Opposition to ObamaCare Increased in House By Nearly 16 Percent

Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org.

On Wednesday, the House passed a bill to completely repeal ObamaCare 245-189 with three Democrats—Rep. Mike Ross (AR), Dan Boren (OK) and Mike McIntyre (NC)—joining the unanimous Republican vote. This is a huge victory for freedom. The next step is to force Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to vote on full ObamaCare repeal. Over at FoxNews.com, FreedomWorks Vice President of Health Care Policy Dean Clancy tells us exactly how to do that. While the fight may be far from over, we can get this unconstitutional government takeover repealed through hard work and determination. We won’t stop until the repeal bill lands on President Obama’s desk.

The level of opposition to ObamaCare continues to rise. In March 2010, 212 lawmakers – 178 Republicans and 34 Democrats—voted against enacting ObamaCare. This week, a bipartisan group of 245 lawmakers —242 Republicans and 3 Democrats—voted to repeal the health care law. This means that opposition to ObamaCare in the House increased by 15.6 percent since last March. The Wall Street Journal reflects on the numbers by saying, “the March vote, at 219-212 , was a lot closer and would have gone the other way had moderate Democrats not been bullied into supporting the legislation.”

Likewise, the majority of Americans oppose the new health care law. Rasmussen Report polls have shown that the support for repeal of ObamaCare has remained steady. Every week since the law’s passage, their polls have shown that the majority of Americans favor repeal. According to their latest weekly poll, 55 percent of likely voters favor repeal.

Democrats who voted for ObamaCare faced a tough election year. On November 2nd, the American people’s voice was heard at the ballot box. A total of 35 Democrats listed below who supported ObamaCare were defeated in 2010. Unfortunately, nine Democrats listed below who originally voted against ObamaCare decided to vote against repeal this week. The recent historical election should have been a warning sign. Their vote against repeal could potentially harm them if they decide to run again in 2012.

A day after the ObamaCare repeal vote, the House voted 253-175—with 14 Democrats joining the Republican majority— for a resolution that would task committees with developing a better health care plan. House Speaker John Boehner said that these proposed reforms would be “common-sense reforms that bring down the cost of health insurance.” We look forward to offering these lawmakers numerous proposals on free market health care plans that will improve health care quality while lowering cost.
Democrats Who Voted For Enactment in 2010 and Were Defeated at 2010 Polls: (35)

•        Ann Kirkpatrick, AZ-1

•         Harry Mitchell, AZ-5

•         John Salazar, CO-3

•         Betsy Markey, CO-4

•         Allen Boyd, FL-2

•         Alan Grayson, FL-8

•         Ron Klein, FL-22

•         Suzanne Kosmas, FL-24

•         Melissa Bean, IL-8

•         Debbie Halvorson, IL-11

•         Bill Foster, IL-14

•         Phil Hare, IL-17

•         Baron Hill, IN-9

•         Mark Schauer, MI-7

•         Jim Oberstar, MN-8

•         Dina Titus, NV-3

•         Carol Shea-Porter, NH-1

•         John Hall, NY-19

•         Scott Murphy, NY-20

•         Dan Maffei, NY-25

•         Bob Etheridge, NC-2

•         Earl Pomeroy, ND-AL

•         Steve Dreihaus, OH-1

•         Charlie Wilson, OH-6

•         Mary Jo Kilroy, OH-15

•         John Boccieri, OH-16

•         Kathy Dahlkemper, PA-3

•         Patrick Murphy, PA-8

•         Chris Carney, PA-10

•         Paul Kanjorski, PA-11

•         John Spratt, SC-5

•         Ciro Rodrigues, TX-23

•         Solomon Ortiz, TX-27

•         Tom Perriello, VA-5

Democrats Who  Voted Against Enactment in 2010 and Against Repeal in 2011: (9)

•         John Barrow, GA-12

•         Daniel Lipinski, IL-3

•         Stephen Lynch, MA-9

•         Collin Peterson, MN-7

•         Larry Kissel, NC-8

•         Heath Shuler, NC-11

•         Jason Altmire, PA-4

•         Tim Holden, PA-17

•         Jim Matheson, UT-2

ObamaCare Predicted to Increase Health Care Spending By 39 Percent in 2014

Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org.

Over a month ago, Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) claimed that the American people’s unfavorable opinion of ObamaCare would likely change over time:

Mark my words, several years from now, you’re going to look back and say, ‘Well, that wasn’t so bad after all.

Wasn’t so bad after all? In the next several years, studies have confirmed that Americans will face far higher insurance premium costs. By the year 2019, it is estimated that U.S health spending will rise from about $2.5 trillion to $4.6 trillion. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services project that overall national health spending will increase by 6.3 percent each year over the next decade. In other words, health care costs will consume one out of every five dollars spent in the United States. According to the Wall Street Journal:

U.S. health spending is projected to rise 9.2% in 2014, up from the 6.6% projected before the law took effect…The creation of new high-risk insurance pools, a requirement that children can stay on their parents’ insurance plans until age 26 and other early provisions will increase U.S. health expenditures by $10.2 billion through 2013, the report says.

This year, the number of uninsured Americans rose at a record rate to 50.7 million. The USA Today reports that:

Driving much of the increase, however, was the rising cost of medical care; a Kaiser Family Foundation report shows workers now pay 47% more than they did in 2005 for family health coverage, while employers pay 20% more.

In the next few weeks, health insurance premiums are expected to rise by 1 to 9 percent due to the costly provisions in ObamaCare. Last week, President Obama stated that:

As a consequence of us getting 30 million additional people health care, at the margins that’s going to increase our costs — we knew that.

Of course, these costly consequences were not exactly included in his rallying speeches prior to the passage of ObamaCare. Instead, the American people were told that “health care reform” needed to be passed immediately to “tackle needless waste and spiraling costs.”

The Obama administration is trying to change public opinion on the rising health care costs. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote a threatening letter to insurance companies stating that they were not allowed to blame premium hikes on ObamaCare. She claims that “there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases.” It seems that Insurance companies only option is to keep silence about the reason for their rate hikes or be cut off entirely from government payments.

Polls show that the majority of Americans want ObamaCare to be repealed as soon as possible. Kathleen Sebelius claims that she has “a lot of reeducation to do” in order to change that fact. However, perhaps Sebelius herself needs to be educated on why informed Americans oppose this counterproductive law. Sebelius should listen to her Health and Human Services predecessor Michael Leavitt who states:

What Congress passed this spring is the illusion of Medicare reform. It does not ease cost pressures but papers over them with unsustainable price controls. It will end in disappointment.

So far, all of President Obama’s health care promises are unraveling. In 2009, FreedomWorks predicted that “your insurance premiums will go up” if the ObamaCare law is passed. Unfortunately, we have begun to see the unintended consequences of a bill that many lawmakers probably did not bother to read.  As ObamaCare supporter Senator Baucus (D-MT) said “I don’t think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the health care bill.” In order to rein in spiraling health care costs, we must work towards repealing ObamaCare and replacing it with patient centered free markets solutions that will lower insurance premiums for all Americans.

ObamaCare Causes Insurance Premium Hikes

Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org.

Back in March, Congress narrowly passed the 2,400 page ObamaCare law that was suppose to help “lower costs in the health care system.” Beforehand, countless economists warned of the costly unintended consequences that may occur. 130 economists signed a letter to the White House stating that “the health care bill will increase spending on health care and will increase the cost of health coverage.” Unfortunately, President Obama ignored their wise advice by signing the health care overhaul bill into law.

Almost six months later, we have already begun to see these harmful unintended consequences take effect. According to the Wall Street Journal, ObamaCare will force health insurers to raise their premiums in coming weeks:

Aetna Inc., some BlueCross BlueShield plans and other smaller carriers have asked for premium increases of between 1% and 9% to pay for extra benefits required under the [ObamaCare] law, according to filings with state regulators. These and other insurers say Congress’s landmark refashioning of U.S. health coverage is causing them to pass on more costs to consumers than Democrats predicted… Many carriers also are seeking additional rate increases that they say they need to cover rising medical costs. As a result, some consumers could face total premium increases of more than 20%.

Of course, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. For every extra benefit that Congress mandated that health insurers provide there is an extra cost. One provision of ObamaCare is that children—or adults—must be allowed to stay on their parent’s insurance up to the age of 26. Since this government mandate is likely to cost health insurers a significant amount of money, they have no choice but to pass this extra cost onto consumers.

Like virtually every government intervention in the market, ObamaCare will accomplish the exact opposite of what the law was intended to do. The National Center for Policy Analysis found that state governments forcing insurance companies to provide certain mandated benefits drove up the cost of insurance as much as 30 percent. Additionally, the law is likely to cost far more than the Obama administration’s projection of $950 billion. A new independent study finds that ObamaCare may cost taxpayers as much as $2.7 trillion during its first ten years of full implementation.

Here is a chart from the Wall Street Journal showing some of the health insurance companies that will likely be rising their rates due to ObamaCare:

In order to prevent the coming health insurance premium hikes, we must work towards repealing the bureaucratic nightmare of ObamaCare. In the House, there is a discharge petition sponsored by Rep. Steven King (R-Iowa) that would repeal the entirely of ObamaCare. Thus far, the petition has 170 of the 218 signatures required to force a vote on the motion regardless of the speaker’s objections. However, 6 Republicans and 31 Democrats who voted against ObamaCare have yet to sign the petition—the Republicans include Mark Kirk of Illinois, Joseph Cao and Charles Boustany of Louisiana, David Reichert of Washington, and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia (Rep. Castle of Delaware says he intends to sign the petition once he turns from Congressional recess.) Please contact your representatives and tell them to sign a petition to repeal ObamaCare (H.R. 4972) to prevent the cost of healthcare from rising due to needless government intervention.

OBAMACARE’S ENDLESS WEB OF BUREAUCRACY

Originally posted on July 28, 2010.

In a Thomas Sowell column, he states:

It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it.

Today, the Joint Economic Committee released a flowchart to illustrate the bureaucratic nightmare known as ObamaCare.

PDF version available here.

It gets worse. The committee analysis could only fit one-third of the complexity of Obamacare on the above flowchart. Finally, Nancy Pelosi and the other lawmakers that did not bother to read the entirety of the 2,801 page bill can find out what actually was in it. As it turns out, the creation of 159 new bureaucracies, insurance mandates and higher taxes were hidden in the complex law.

For comparison purposes, here’s what the free market health care flow chart looks like:

The free market health care plan is a simple model that leaves health care decisions between a patient and a doctor instead of a complex web of bureaucracy. We will continue to fight until the bureaucratic monstrosity that is Obamacare is repealed and replaced with a simple free market model that emphasizes freedom. Use FreedomWorks’ congressional directory to call your representatives and tell them to take action to repeal unconstitutional Obamacare!