Welcome to Health & School News

Just click on INDEX to take you to a complete listing of all articles appearing on this page

Klee Joins in Suit to Stop Obamacare (August 2, 2010)

Harvey H. Klee, together with more than 25,000 Americans are named as individual plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), filed recently in Federal Court by TN attorney and Congressional Candidate Van Irion. Mr. Irion also filed a motion for preliminary injunction requesting a court order to halt the enforcement of all aspects of the PPACA, also known as Obamacare.

The suit challenges Obamacare on the basis that Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to regulate health care. Mr. Irion is asking the courts to re-evaluate the 68 year-old Commerce clause precedent, arguing that the precedent in effect destroys the intent of the Constitution and specifically violates the 10th Amendment. Mr. Irion says in the motion for Preliminary Injunction, “The fact that the error perpetrated against America in Wickard has fundamentally changed the way our government operates, should not be used as an excuse to continue the error.”

The case was originally filed with one named plaintiff, Anthony Shreeve, on April 8, 2010. Since that time, over 25,000 Americans from all 50 states learned of the suit and asked to join. The latest filings amend the complaint to include the individuals and businesses that have contacted Irion to request that they be joined as co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Also included in the latest filings is a motion for a preliminary injunction. If granted, the motion would result in a court order from the Federal Court in Chattanooga prohibiting the Federal government from enforcing Obamacare, pending the outcome of the lawsuit.

Irion’s filed lawsuit is the first suit to allow any US citizen or business to join as a plaintiff and is the only suit to directly attack the legal precedent of the Commerce clause and therefore the Constitutionality of Obamacare. Irion has been interviewed on both Greta Van Susteren’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren”, and Judge Andrew Napolitano’s “Freedom Watch.”

“The lawsuit quickly became so popular among grassroots movements, that a website was set up to take plaintiff information and allow people to follow the progress of the case,” said Irion. The suit has been dubbed Obamacare Class Action, or “OCA”, and can be found at http://www.van4congress.org/contact/obamacare-class-action/. Individuals and businesses can join by filling out a form that captures name, address and email address. Phone number and company name is optional, but US companies have the option of signing on as a corporate plaintiff.

“This is truly the ‘People’s Suit’” Irion says. It’s their name on the complaint. America is suing the President, Pelosi, Reid and the Federal government, saying that the Obamacare legislation is wrong. It is unconstitutional and must be overturned.”

The complaint was filed in Federal Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, Chattanooga, on April 8, case file number 1:10cv-71. The amended complaint adding over 25,000 Americans was filed July 19, along with the motion for preliminary injunction. For more information about Van Irion, visit Van4Congress or Law Office of Van R Irion PLLC.

And remember Klee's Law: "The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus

What Flu Pandemic? (July 26, 2010)

By Fiona Macrae

Widespread warnings were issued about the swine flu 'pandemic'

Declaring a swine flu pandemic was a 'monumental error', driven by profit-hungry drug companies spreading fear, an influential report has concluded.

It led to huge amounts of taxpayers' money being wasted in stockpiling vaccines, it added.

Paul Flynn, the Labour MP charged with investigating the handling of the swine flu outbreak for the Council of Europe, described it as 'a pandemic that never really was'.

The report accuses the World Health Organisation of grave shortcomings in the transparency of the process that led to its warning last year.

The MP said that the world relied on the WHO, but after 'crying wolf', its reputation was in jeopardy.

The report questions whether the pandemic was driven by drug companies seeking a profit. Mr Flynn said predictions of a 'plague' that would wipe out up to 7.5million people proved to be 'an exaggeration', with fewer than 20,000 deaths worldwide.

Britain braced itself for up to 65,000 deaths and signed vaccine contracts worth £540million.

The actual number of deaths was fewer than 500 and the country is now desperately trying to unpick the contracts and unload millions of unused jabs.

The focus on swine flu also led to other health services suffering and widespread public fear.

Pharmaceutical companies, however, profited to the tune of £4.6 billion from the sale of vaccines alone.

Mr Flynn said: 'There is not much doubt that this was an exaggeration on stilts. They vastly over-stated the danger on bad science and the national governments were in a position where they had to take action.

'In Britain, we have spent at least £1 billion on preparations, to the detriment of other parts of the health system. This is a monumental failure on the WHO's part.'

The Council of Europe inquiry heard allegations that the WHO had downgraded its definition for declaring a pandemic last spring - just weeks before announcing there was a worldwide outbreak.

Critics said the decision to remove any need to consider the deadliness of the disease was driven by drug companies desperate to recoup the billions of pounds they had invested in developing pandemic vaccines after the bird flu scares.

But the WHO said its basic definition of a pandemic never changed.

Mr Flynn said: 'It doesn't make any sense as to why they should have changed the definition a month before declaring an outbreak.

'In this case, it might not just be a conspiracy theory; it might be a very profitable conspiracy.'

A Daily Mail investigation earlier this year revealed more than half of the swine flu taskforce advising the Government on its strategy had ties to drug companies.

Eleven of the 20 members of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies had done work for the pharmaceutical industry or are linked to it through their universities.

Concerns about drug companies' influence are also highlighted by a separate investigation by the British Medical Journal and the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

It found that key scientists behind the WHO's advice on stockpiling pandemic flu pills such as Tamiflu had financial ties with the drug companies that stood to profit. The WHO last night firmly rejected all the criticism.

Spokesman Gregory Hartl said: 'There is no question of this being a fake pandemic. If fits the criteria for a pandemic, which is a new virus to which human beings have little or no immunity and which has spread around the world.

'It spread from zero to 74 countries in the space of 9 weeks - that’s a pandemic.'

He said that not all ties to drug companies were necessarily conflicts of interest.

Repeal of Obamacare Bill (July 5, 2010)

H.R. 4972, introduced by Congressman Steve King, says...

Effective as of the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, such Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.

Pretty simple, right? So why have only 90 of the 179 representatives that claim to be Conservative signed on as Co-Sponsors? Unfortunately we can't trust many of our Representatives to represent us. Americans overwhelmingly oppose Obamacare. Signing on to this bill as a Co-Sponsor should be a no-brainer in this election cycle. Makes you wonder why they aren't. Many of them want to water this bill down or include other "reforms". Any actual reform can only start with repealing this monstrous bill.

Below is a list of Texas Representatives , with those co-sponsoring at the beginning. Remember this list come election time. Remember there is a big difference between electing Conservatives and electing Constitutionalists. I am a Constitutionalist first, Conservative second and a Republican third. Make sure those you send to D.C. this November are Constitutionalists as well. 

Co-Sponsors. Name Party State Represented District Phone Number

Yes Louie Gohmert R TEXAS 1  (202) 225-3035

Yes Ted Poe R TEXAS 2  (202) 225-6565

Yes Ralph M. Hall R TEXAS 4  (202) 225-6673

Yes Jeb Hensarling R TEXAS 5  (202) 225-3484

Yes John Abney Culberson R TEXAS 7  (202) 225-2571

Yes K. Michael Conaway R TEXAS 11  (202) 225-3605

Yes Mac Thornberry R TEXAS 13  (202) 225-3706

Yes Ron Paul R TEXAS 14  (202) 225-2831

Yes Randy Neugebauer R TEXAS 19  (202) 225-4005

Yes Lamar Smith R TEXAS 21  (202) 225-4236

Yes Pete Olson R TEXAS 22  (202) 225-5951

Yes Kenny Marchant R TEXAS 24  (202) 225-6605

Yes Michael C. Burgess R TEXAS 26  (202) 225-7772

Yes John R. Carter R TEXAS 31  (202) 225-3864

Those Texas Representatives who have failed to co-sponsor the Bill:

 Sam Johnson R TEXAS 3  (202) 225-4201

 Joe Barton R TEXAS 6  (202) 225-2002

 Kevin Brady R TEXAS 8  (202) 225-4901

 Al Green D TEXAS R  (202) 225-7508

 Michael T. McCaul R TEXAS 10  (202) 225-2401

 Kay Granger R TEXAS 12  (202) 225-5071

 Ruben Hinojosa D TEXAS 15  (202) 225-2531

 Silvestre Reyes D TEXAS 16  (202) 225-4831

 Chet Edwards D TEXAS 17  (202) 225-6105

 Sheila Jackson-Lee D TEXAS 18  (202) 225-3816

 Charles A. Gonzalez D TEXAS 20  (202) 225-3236

 Ciro D. Rodriguez D TEXAS 23  (202) 225-4511

 Lloyd Doggett D TEXAS 25  (202) 225-4865

 Solomon P. Ortiz D TEXAS 27  (202) 225-7742

 Henry Cuellar D TEXAS 28  (202) 225-1640

 Gene Green D TEXAS 29  (202) 225-1688

Texas School Spending Tops $11k per Pupil (June 28, 2010)

As we close out this school year, taxpayers may wonder what kind of bang we're getting for our educational buck, asks Michael Quinn Sullivan, President and CEO of Empower Texans.

    * Texans now spend more than $11,000 per year, per student on public education -- with less than half going toward instructional expenses.

    * In the 2008-2009 school year -- the last for which data is available -- Texas schools spent $11,084 per kid; 10 years ago, Texas spent just $5,857 per pupil.

    * If per pupil spending had risen with inflation, the cost after 10 years would have approximately been $7,545. 

So where is the money going?  Well, it's not going to the classroom, says Sullivan:

    * If you think of each kid the way school bureaucrats do -- as bags of money -- and consider your average third-grade class capped at 22 students per teacher, that's $243,848 sitting there.

    * But the money isn't going to the teacher; average teacher pay was $47,313 in the 2008-2009 school year (up from $34,357 a decade ago).

So where's the other $200,000 derived from our average classroom going, asks Sullivan:

    * Of the $11,084 spent per pupil on public education in 2009, only $4,831 went for anything that could even remotely be considered "instructional" expenses as defined by the Texas Education Agency.

    * Over the last decade, student enrollment has risen 15 percent -- from 3.9 million students to 4.6 million students.

    * In that same period, the number of teachers grew accordingly, at 19.3 percent.

    * We now have 14.4 students for every teacher (in 1999 it was 15.2 students per teacher).

But non-teachers?  That's where the growth is.  We had 22 percent more in 2009 than in 1999, says Sullivan.

So for all this spending, and for all these new, non-classroom employees, surely there's been some marked improvement in academic performance.  Actually, there's been a decline in results, says Sullivan:

    * The average Texas SAT score in 1999 was a 992.

    * Over 10 years it has fallen to 988. 

Source: Michael Quinn Sullivan, "Texas School Spending Tops $11k Per Pupil," Empower Texans, May 19, 2010.

Editor’s Note: In spite of the high spending, 25 percent of Texas college students are taking remedial classes. Another example of your tax dollars NOT at work.

Texas SBOE Adopts Social Study Standards (June 28, 2010)

Update to previous article:

The State Board of Education has adopted new social studies and history guidelines for Texas high school classrooms.

The board voted 9-5 on the high school standards. Final edits were being made on the elementary school curriculum.

The standards have been given a more conservative bent by the board. They dictate how political events and figures will be taught to some 4.8 million schoolchildren in Texas and beyond for the next decade.

The standards also will be used by textbook publishers who often develop materials for other states based on those approved in Texas.

The debate has brought national attention to the effort, which this week featured testimony from educators, civil rights leaders and a former U.S. education secretary.

Electronic Textbooks – Another Waste of Money (June 21, 2010)

By Geraldine “Tincy” Miller, State Board of Education District 12

Plans were discussed recently to replace printed textbooks with electronic ones in the state’s pubic schools.  Although some state leaders prefer moving in this direction, I would urge that it not be a top-down approach or a cost-shifting strategy for the state.  And, most important, I would insist that the quality of the materials be the central focus of any change. 

Educators should lead any such transition, not the state.

Various studies have shown that when college students have the option of choosing between e-books and printed textbooks, they overwhelmingly choose the printed textbook because it is easier to read and reference. Therefore, parents, educators and local textbook committees and school boards should have some say over the format as well.

Moving to an entirely electronic format is a major change for schools. Each district will have to figure out the total cost of:

    * Buying the devices

    * Training teachers

    * Setting up the devices

    * Making sure they work for blind students

    * Maintaining, insuring & protecting them from theft and/or damage; and

    * Providing uninterrupted Internet connectivity with Internet filters.

These are all new costs that must be addressed at a time when school districts are facing financial crises and laying off teachers.

Obviously, hardware becomes outdated much more quickly than textbooks.

Is your laptop six or ten years old? By law, instructional materials must last at least six years — and often will be in classrooms as long as 10 years.

This scenario leads me to my second point:

    * The state should not use this move to shift costs to the local level.

If the state is just buying digital materials because they cost less, but districts still want print or are not yet equipped to go digital, that would shift tremendous costs to our local schools and taxpayers.

Will the state make districts choose between spending money on content or devices?

The Legislature has not properly funded the Technology Allotment, which was created to provide funding for technological equipment, and last session it passed legislation that allows districts to use state textbook funds for equipment. Our textbook fund was established to provide students with access to quality learning materials at no cost to local districts.

Because of this new legislation, your child might not have materials to bring home.

The equipment is simply the means to access the content, and we must always remember that it is the content on the devices that is most crucial to our students.

While electronic content can provide some richer experiences, it does not necessarily translate to every subject area. Furthermore, some argue that free Internet options are available to answer the question of cost.

However, free materials certainly do not necessarily live up to standards in which we would like our teachers to operate. Accountability is a primary issue here. Make no mistake about it: If we don’t have quality content, the devices will simply be empty boxes.

Whether in print or electronic format, the State Board of Education certifies the accuracy and alignment of this content to the curriculum, and that is the key to ensuring our students a quality education.

Any further erosion of this system, any mingling of state textbook funds for hardware, and any further shifting of costs from the state to the local level will endanger our students’ education and overburden our schools and taxpayers.

Please contact me via my website by clicking here should you have any questions or concerns.

 Tincy Miller represents Dist. 12 on the Texas State Board of Education.  A Member since 1984, she was appointed by Gov. Rick Perry to serve as Chair from 2003-2007.

The Federal Health Care Nullification Act (May 31, 2010)

Los Angeles, CA  (PRWEB) "Now that Health Care reform has been signed into law, the question people ask most is "What do we do about it?" said Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.  "The status quo response includes lobbying congress, marching on D.C. "voting the bums out," suing in federal court, and more.  But the last 100 years have proven that none of these really work, and government continues to grow year in and year out."

"We recommend a different path, one advised by prominent founders such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison - nullification," said Boldin.  Nullification, according to the Center, is the rightful remedy to an unconstitutional act, as it considers the recently-signed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be. When a state nullifies a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or non-effective, within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

In partnership with WeRefuse.com, the Tenth Amendment Center has announced the release of their model legislation for such state-level action, the Federal Health Care Nullification Act.  The Act would codify in state law that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act "is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States...is hereby declared to be invalid...shall not be recognized...is specifically rejected...and shall be considered null and void and of no effect" within the boundaries of any state enacting it. It also mandates that it "shall be the duty" of the State's legislature "to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement."

The two groups have set an initial goal of 100,000 petition signers to support the state nullification legislation, and consider this the ultimate expression of the sovereignty of "We the People." "Nullification will allow Americans to stop the overreaching federal government now, not years from now," said Trevor Lyman of WeRefuse.com who popularized campaign "money bombs" in support of Ron Paul"s 2008 presidential run. "We can make our biggest waves in local politics.  Our state governments understand the impact of a vocal and irate minority, and they simply need to hear from us.  WeRefuse.com and The Tenth Amendment Center's Federal Health Care Nullification Act give our state legislators their marching orders," he continued.

According to both groups, the new health care reform legislation not only violates conservative principles by greatly enlarging federal power and control, but also is an affront to traditional progressive principles because it requires millions of people to give their money to an industry that many liberals revile, and interferes with the ability of states and local communities to enact their own health care programs as they see fit.

"It's time to remind the federal government that We the People are in charge and not the other way around," said Boldin. "Following the Constitution every issue, every time, without exceptions or excuses requires us to resist federal overreach and keeping our health care decisions where the Founders assured us that they'd be and where they belong...close to home."

About the Tenth Amendment Center:

The Tenth Amendment Center, a Los Angeles-based think tank founded in 2006, acts as a forum for education and activism in support of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

About WeRefuse.com:

WeRefuse.com is an on online petition center where citizens of each state can express their demands for nullification of National Health Care and other over-reaching federal legislation.  http://www.WeRefuse.com

War on Seniors (May 31, 2010)

Senior citizens are by far the biggest losers in health reform, says John C. Goodman, President, CEO and the Kellye Wright Fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

For example:

    * More than half the cost of health reform will be paid for by $523 billion of cuts in Medicare spending over the next 10 years.

    * Although there are some new benefits for seniors (mainly new drug coverage), the costs exceed the benefits by a factor of more than 10 to 1.

    * As many as 8.5 million of the 11 million seniors in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans may lose their coverage, according to Medicare's Chief Actuary.

    * Those lucky enough to retain their MA coverage will face steep cuts in benefits or hefty increases in premiums, or both.

In addition to these direct costs there are indirect costs, including new taxes on drugs and medical devices. Although these taxes don't single out senior citizens, they are the heaviest users of wheelchairs, crutches, artificial joints, pacemakers, etc., explains Goodman.

To make matters worse:

    * Severe rationing problems lie ahead, as 32 million newly insured people try to double their consumption of medical care under a reform bill that produces not one new doctor, nurse or other paramedical personnel.

    * Because many of the newly insured will be in private plans paying market rates, they will be more attractive to doctors than Medicare enrollees paying about 20 percent to 30 percent less.

So how did this happen? Aren't senior citizens supposed to be the most powerful voting bloc? Aren't they supposed to be represented by the all-powerful AARP?

Unfortunately for seniors (and indeed all Medicare enrollees), AARP sold out its own members. Just as the American Medical Association sold out doctors and the labor unions sold out their own members, AARP signed on to legislation that helps AARP but hurts the millions of people who AARP claims to represent, says Goodman.

Source: John C. Goodman, "War on Seniors," National Center for Policy Analysis, April 21, 2010.

Support the Texas State Board of Education Social Study Standards (May 24, 2010)

Recently the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) released its approved social studies standards voted on in their March meeting.

The SBOE has done an outstanding job restoring historically accurate Texas social studies standards while maintaining the integrity and timetable of the curriculum standards review process. The board members reinforced a set of curriculum standards designed to promote academic success and a legitimate sense of pride in our country, our values, and our leaders, rather than shame America as leftwing radicals foster. The final vote to pass the standards was scheduled for May 21, 2010.   

Many distortions and myths have been told by liberal educrats about what is and what is not in the standards. 

In a blatant disregard for public input, a small vocal minority is now demanding that the SBOE throw out these standards and permit a group of college “experts” to create new standards in order to push their own radical left wing agenda.  They are petitioning a re-do of the past year of hard-work by members of the SBOE.  They want to silence public input from 4 public hearings on social studies, 30+ hours of public testimony and 14,000 emails.

These college and university “experts” (“faculty and researchers”) are demanding that they, rather than our elected SBOE members, make the decisions about what our Texas school children learn. Indeed they want to get rid of our citizen elected SBOE altogether.  However, it is educrats who have dumbed down our national public schools to such an extent that 42% of those entering college require remedial work. 

These intellectual elitists have thrown our American values to the wind, and they are the unelected review panel members responsible for the ludicrous proposals to remove Christmas, Albert Einstein, Neil Armstrong, Thomas Edison, religious heritage language, Independence Day, Veterans Day, and Christopher Columbus from Texas standards. These ridiculous changes were overruled by our elected SBOE members, their expert review panel, parents and taxpayers of Texas.  ALL significant historical facts were returned to our Texas standards.

One of the many beneficial additions to the curriculum is the study of American exceptionalism. Many think American exceptionalism is meant to devalue other nations; however, the term was given to us out of honor by Alexis de Tocqueville to point out the tremendous spirit of the American founders, American heroes, American entrepreneurs and most of all the American people who harness the pursuit of the American Dream.  There is no better way to instill a solemn pride in our nation’s youth than to teach the principles that make America unique.

We need to show our support of the SBOE and the fine work they have done in creating a strong and historically accurate set of social studies curriculum standards and let them know that we want them to finalize these standards when they reconvene in May.  By signing this petition you show support for the current Social Studies Standards approved in March, ask the Texas State Board of Education to pass the standards on May 21, 2010 and support an elected SBOE by the people of Texas.

Sign the petition to support the current social studies standards in May here    http://austinreteaparty.com/Signthepetition.aspx

Send a written response to the SBOE in support of the proposed standards and ask for them to be passed in May. Send emails to sboesupport@tea.state.tx.us .

Five Additional States Join Legal Challenge to Federal Health Care Law (May 10, 2010)

Bipartisan, multi-state challenge now includes 18 states

AUSTIN – Five additional states have announced that they will join the original 13 states’ legal challenge to the newly enacted federal health care legislation. Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada and Arizona will join Texas and 12 other states’ legal action, which was filed on March 23 in federal court.

“No public policy goal – no matter how important or well-intentioned – can be allowed to trample the protections and rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution,” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said. “The federal health care legislation violates our Constitution, imposes an unprecedented mandate on individual Texans, and will require the Texas taxpayers to spend billions of additional dollars on health care programs. The addition of five new states to our bipartisan legal challenge reflects broad, nationwide concern about the constitutionality of this sweeping and unprecedented federal legislation.”

Under the new federal health care law, for the first time in the nation’s history, the federal government is attempting to force individual Americans to enter into contracts and purchase services from private companies – in this case, insurance companies – or face a penalty. The state attorneys general are challenging this so-called individual mandate requirement, explaining that such an imposition on the American people exceeds Congress’ authority and violates Americans’ constitutional rights. Additionally, the states are challenging provisions of the new law that will impose dramatic Medicaid spending increases on the states – including $27 billion in mandatory spending increases in the State of Texas.

The eighteen-state coalition includes Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Washington, Colorado, Michigan, Utah, Alabama, South Dakota and Idaho.

Muslims Can Opt Out of Obamacare (April 12, 2010)

Isn't this nice. If you are of the Muslim religion, you don't have to give all the new Obamacare healthcare reform regulations and penalties another thought. Because the concept of being compelled to participate in such a healthcare program offends Islamic sensibilities, Muslims are specifically exempt.

As a matter of fact if you are Amish, American Indian or a Christian Scientist you do not need to participate or pay the taxes associated with healthcare reform. That means not having to be forced to buy healthcare insurance, not paying the taxes or the penalties if you don't get it. Nice!

Here is what the regulations say:

EXEMPTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.

    —In the case of an individual who is seeking an exemption certificate under section 1311(d)(4)(H) from any requirement or penalty imposed by section 5000A, the following information:

In the case of an individual seeking exemption based on the individual’s status as a member of an exempt religious sect or division, as a member of a health care sharing ministry, as an Indian, or as an individual eligible for a hardship exemption, such information as the Secretary shall prescribe.”

Senate Bill, H.R. 3590, pages 273-274

There are several reasons why an individual could claim exemption, being a member of a religion that does not believe in insurance is one of them. Islam is one of those religions. Muslims believe that health insurance is “haraam”, or forbidden; because they liken the ambiguity and probability of insurance to gambling. This belief excludes them from any of the requirements, mandates, or penalties set forth in the bill.

This means that if you are Christian and abortion is against your religion tough luck.

If you are Jewish, tough luck as well.

Question: Why do these groups get a free ride? Why the largest religious block in North and South America i.e. Christians, is discriminated against like this? So much for equal protection under the law and the Establishment clause.

Obamacare Tab $2.5 Trillion, Not Measly $940 billion in CBO Guess (April 12, 2010)

By Bob Unruh

A new analysis of "Obamacare," as President Obama's plan effectively nationalizing health care has been dubbed, concludes the law will hit American households for more than $17 billion a year with just one of its "disasters," and the real overall cost likely will be $2.5 trillion, nearly triple the $940 billion estimate from the Congressional Budget Office.

According to the Heritage Foundation, the nation's most broadly supported public policy research institute, a single $17 billion-plus hit on American's wallets will come from a tax increase on anyone with investment income, the result of dollars being invested in creating new products, services and jobs.

Heritage Foundation analysts Karen Campbell and Guinevere Nell found the tax, at Obama's proposed rate of 2.9 percent, would reduce household disposable income by $17.3 billion a year, the analysis said.

The rate included in the new law is 3.8 percent, so "the actual effects are likely to be even more dramatic," the report warned.

The analysis examined the "Patients Protection and Affordability Act," passed by the House March 21, the sidecar reconciliation bill that originated in the House.

The two, the analysis said, "will have major ramifications for every man, woman and child in the United States."

"Between these two bills are countless provisions that grow federal spending, increase burdensome taxes, and put federal rules and regulations between Americans and control over their health care," the report said.

Many such analyses are just now being published, since much of the law wasn't available for review until shortly before the votes, and lawmakers themselves admitted they didn't know all of its contents.

The foundation said there are 10 "major ways" it will injure Americ...

The analysis concluded the estimate from the Congressional Budget Office that the plan will cost $940 billion from 2010 to 2019 is just plain wrong.

"The authors of this legislation took advantage … in crafting the language of the bill, employing several budgetary gimmicks to make it appear cheaper," the report said.

"These include omitting cuts to Medicare provider payment rates, known as the 'doc fix,' double-counting savings from Medicare and the CLASS Act, indexing benefits to general inflation rather than medical inflation, and delaying the expensive provisions of the bill.

"When these costs are accounted for, the new law is more likely to cost closer to $2.5 trillion," the report said. "Such levels of spending will not only negate any projected deficit reduction but increase the federal deficit further than would prior law.

The report also warned that efforts to address the cost of health care only address the symptoms of price hikes, and growth will be stymied by government fines for employees not covered by "adequate" policies.

Further, the government now not only will "define a required benefits package" but will "dictate the prices that insurers set."

"The bill also opens the door for a de facto public option by creating government-sponsored national health plans to compete against private health plans in the health insurance exchanges the states are required to establish," the report said.

It also extends Medicaid, a financially unsuccessful government plan, to "all Americans who fall below 133 percent of the federal poverty level."

"According to CBO, of the 32 million newly insured in 2019, half will receive their coverage from Medicaid," the report said.

"As it stands, Medicaid is a low-quality, poorly functioning program that fails to meet the needs of the Americans it serves. In most states, Medicaid beneficiaries have great difficulty finding a doctor who will treat them at the program's low reimbursement rates and are more likely than the uninsured to rely on emergency rooms for care," it said.

Other problems "Obamacare" presents include dumping huge new financial obligations on states that cannot balance their budgets – with costs estimated at almost $10 billion; failing to address the expected 2016 insolvency of Medicare; and creating an inequity among Americans for insurance programs actually available.

The Heritage analysis also concludes a major element of the law is unconstitutional.

"The new law requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. This represents an unprecedented extension of congressional power – never before has the federal government required Americans to purchase a good or service as stipulation of being a lawful citizen," the analysis said.

The structure of fines also creates an incentive for employers to avoid hiring workers from low-income families, "hurting those who need jobs the most."

"These disasters are only the beginning of the vast effects the president's health acre overhaul will have on the U.S.," the report warned in its conclusion.

Walgreens to Stop Taking Medicare Patients (March 22, 2010)

By Janet I. Tu

Effective April 16, Walgreens drugstores across Washington State won't take any new Medicaid patients, saying that filling their prescriptions is a money-losing proposition — the latest development in an ongoing dispute over Medicaid reimbursement.

The company, which operates 121 stores in the state, will continue filling Medicaid prescriptions for current patients.

In a news release, Walgreens said its decision to not take new Medicaid patients stemmed from a "continued reduction in reimbursement" under the state's Medicaid program, which reimburses it at less than the break-even point for 95 percent of brand-name medications dispensed to Medicaid patents.

Walgreens follows Bartell Drugs, which stopped taking new Medicaid patients last month at all 57 of its stores in Washington, though it still fills Medicaid prescriptions for existing customers at all but 15 of those stores.

Doug Porter, the state's director of Medicaid, said Medicaid recipients should be able to readily find another pharmacy because "we have many more pharmacy providers in our network than we need" for the state's 1 million Medicaid clients.

Along with Walgreens and Bartell, the Ritzville Drug Company in Adams County announced in November that it would stop participating in Medicaid.

Fred Meyer and Safeway said their pharmacies would continue to serve existing Medicaid patients and to take new ones, though both expressed concern that the reimbursement rate is too low for pharmacies to make a profit.

The amount private insurers and Medicaid pay pharmacies for prescriptions isn't the actual cost of those drugs but rather is based on what's called the drug's estimated average wholesale price. But that figure is more like the sticker price on a car than its actual wholesale cost.

Washington was reimbursing pharmacies 86 percent of a drug's average wholesale price until July, when it began paying them just 84 percent. Pharmacies weren't happy about that.

Then in September came another blow. The average wholesale price is calculated by a private company, which was accused in a Massachusetts lawsuit of fraudulently inflating its figures. The company did not admit wrongdoing but agreed in a court settlement to ratchet its figures down by about 4 percent.

That agreement took effect in September — and prompted a lawsuit by a group of pharmacies and trade associations that said Washington state didn't follow federal law in setting its reimbursement rate, and that that rate is too low. The lawsuit is pending.

"Washington State Medicaid is now reimbursing pharmacies less than their cost of participation," said Jeff Rochon, CEO of the Washington State Pharmacy Association.

Pharmacies that continue to fill Medicaid prescriptions at the current state reimbursement rate are "at risk of putting themselves out of business altogether," he said.

First Washington State, is Texas next?

[Information from Seattle Times archives was used in this report.]

Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes? (March 15, 2010)

by John McCormack

Barack Obama hosted ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he's obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson's brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

“Scott Matheson is a distinguished candidate for the Tenth Circuit court,” President Obama said. “Both his legal and academic credentials are impressive and his commitment to judicial integrity is unwavering. I am honored to nominate this lifelong Utahn to the federal bench.”

Scott M. Matheson, Jr.: Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Scott M. Matheson currently holds the Hugh B. Brown Presidential Endowed Chair at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, where he has been a member of the faculty since 1985. He served as Dean of the Law School from 1998 to 2006. He also taught First Amendment Law at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government from 1989 to 1990.

While on public service leave from the University of Utah from 1993 to 1997, Matheson served as United States Attorney for the District of Utah. In 2007, he was appointed by Governor Jon Huntsman to chair the Utah Mine Safety Commission. He also worked as a Deputy County Attorney for Salt Lake County from 1988 to 1989. Prior to joining the University faculty, Matheson was an associate attorney from 1981 to 1985 at Williams & Connolly LLP in Washington, D.C.

Matheson was born and raised in Utah and is a sixth generation Utahn. He received an A.B. from Stanford University in 1975, an M.A. from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1980.

So, Scott Matheson appears to have the credentials to be a judge, but was his nomination used to buy off his brother's vote?

Consider Congressman Matheson's record on the health care bill. He voted against the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee back in July and again when it passed the House in November. But now he's "undecided" on ramming the bill through Congress. "The Congressman is looking for development of bipartisan consensus," Matheson's press secretary Alyson Heyrend wrote to THE WEEKLY STANDARD on February 22. "It’s too early to know if that will occur." Asked if one could infer that if no Republican votes in favor of the bill (i.e. if a bipartisan consensus is not reached) then Rep. Matheson would vote no, Heyrend replied: "I would not infer anything. I’d wait to see what develops, starting with the health care summit on Thursday."

The timing of this nomination looks suspicious, especially in light Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak's claim that he was offered a federal job not to run aga.... Many speculated that Sestak, a former admiral, was offered the Secretary of the Navy job.

Democrats Mislead on Health Care 'Reconciliation (March 15, 2010)

by Tim McCarron

Americans overwhelmingly oppose "reconciliation" to ram through government-run health care - but Democrats don't care

Democrats Mislead on Health Care 'Reconciliation'March 4, 2010 - President Barack Obama has claimed that most Americans don't care about the "process" of getting health care passed. He's wrong. A Gallup Poll on February 25, revealed that 52% of Americans oppose using reconciliation to ram through socialized medicine.

Americans care about the legislation - they don't want it - and they care about how Democrats are ramming it down their throats. (In addition, a CNN poll on February 26 revealed that 56% of Americans say the federal government poses an immediate threat to individual rights and freedom.)

Harry "Pinocchio" Reid

During the Health Care Summit last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) denied that Democrats have talked about using reconciliation to pass the government takeover of our health care system.

Of course, Reid isn't telling the truth. Just six days before, he was interviewed by a Nevada TV station and admitted he was willing to use reconciliation to force socialist medicine on us.

Way back in September 2009, Reid warned Republicans that he would use reconciliation to pass socialist medicine. He and his colleagues have been constantly warning Republicans that they'd use reconciliation if they had to.

In early February, Republican turncoat Arlen Specter (D-PA) urged his fellow Democrats to use reconciliation to ram through ObamaCare.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was on ABC "This Week" on Friday and told a reporter that Congressmen should show "courage" in supporting ObamaCare - even if it threatened their future in Congress.

According to Pelosi: "We're not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress. We're here to do the job for the American people."

How many Democrats are willing to walk the plank for ObamaCare?

What Is Reconciliation - And Why Should You Care?

Reconciliation has been used in the past to deal with budgetary issues, but it has never been used to ram through such an unpopular and wide-reaching piece of legislation.

It is a process created in 1974 by the Budget Act, which is used to pass tax cuts and deficit reductions. It is supposed to be a tool Congress uses to balance the budget - not to jam through government-run health care against the wishes of the American people.

Reconciliation is used by the leadership to avoid the usual rules of the Senate or the House. Under a reconciliation bill, no filibusters are permitted and it takes only 51 votes to shut down the process and pass a bill.

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) is opposed to using reconciliation. He created a rule that permits Senators to remove extraneous provisions in reconciliation legislation unless those provisions directly relate to changes in levels of federal spending, taxes or debt.

Numerous Democrats have expressed opposition to using reconciliation to ram through socialist medicine. Senator Blanche Lincoln (AR); Sen. Byron Dorgan (ND); Sen. Mary Landrieu (LA); Sen. Jay Rockefeller (WV); Sen. Evan Bayh (IN) and others have voiced opposition to reconciliation on ObamaCare.

Senator Harry Reid, however, is ignoring his fellow Democrats and lying about his plans to use reconciliation to get ObamaCare imposed on all Americans.

TAKE ACTION: Contact your U.S. Senators and Representative and tell them not to use reconciliation to ram through government-run health care. Ask them to vote NO on any plan that nationalizes our health care system.

Generic Drug Plans Focus on Wrong Problem (March 15, 2010)

By John David Powell

The Obama Administration plan to put new generic drugs on the street faster is another example of how Washington healthcare reformers just don’t get it. While it is true that more generic drugs will reduce healthcare costs, it also is true that health risks will increases for many individuals sensitive to even the slightest changes in their medications.

The Obama drug plan imposes $10 billion in fees over ten years on the brand-name pharmaceutical industry, to be parceled out among big drug makers to eliminate the so-called donut hole, or gap, in Medicare prescription drug coverage. The idea is to help patients continue taking their original drugs instead of switching to cheaper generic versions, or going off their meds entirely.

The plan’s second part prohibits pay-for-delay deals, where brand-name drug makers pay generic drug companies to drop patent challenges. Proponents of this idea say pay-for-delay costs Americans up to $3.5 billion each year.

Generic drugs account for more than 70 percent of all prescriptions filled each year in the U.S. at a savings to patients of about $8 billion a year. A different, and insidious, cost to patients comes from the leeway given by the Food and Drug Administration in the manufacture of generic drugs.

The FDA requires a generic drug to be the same as the original in dosage, safety, strength, performance, intended use, and the way it’s taken. The rules, however, allow for a 20-percent variation in the active ingredient. In other words, the good stuff may be 80 percent less than, or 20 percent more than, what’s in the real deal. This broad range may work for antibiotics, but it creates nasty reactions among patients with heightened sensitivities to their medications.

Internet discussion boards teem with anecdotal evidence. One person tells how his symptoms went away during the year he took the real drug, but returned after three months on the generic version, forcing him to go back to the original that cost seven times more, but with “tremendous results.”

A mother describes how her 11-year- old son, who takes several generic anti-seizure drugs, received a different generic for one prescription that made him extremely sedated and “drool like a faucet,” which put him at risk for drowning in his own saliva. She calls this another example of why the FDA should tighten its regulations and monitoring of generic drugs.

I don’t have to go to the Internet to know about the dirty little secret of generic drugs. My wife has temporal lobe epilepsy, in addition to being very sensitive to generics. We knew generic over-the-counter drugs may include inactive ingredients that cause bad side effects, but we assumed generic drugs were the same as real ones. We discovered the difference when she received a generic anti-seizure drug because our insurance company wouldn’t pay for the original. The doctor and pharmacist insisted there was no difference, but a quick search of epilepsy forums turned up person after person with horror stories similar to hers.

Doctors and federal agencies many times require more than a patient’s story, which makes you wonder why the people charged with watching out for our health apparently ignore a study by Giuseppe Borheini published in the 2003 issue of Clinical Therapeutics (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12860486?dopt=Abstract). Borgheini’s team looked at available data going back to 1975 that compared the effectiveness of brand-name psychoactive drugs and their generic counterparts.

One of Borgheini’s more disturbing discoveries was of a study that showed plasma levels of phenytoin were 31 percent lower after a switch from the original anticonvulsant Dilantin. He also learned that when the FDA investigated the sudden recurrence of seizures on the generic valproic acid substituted for Depakote, it found a difference in how the drug gets to where it supposed to go.

Other data showed statistically significant differences in favor of Valium over the generic diazepam in terms of the body’s absorption and distribution.

Borgheini’s research led him to conclude the FDA’s “ essential-similarity requirement should be extended to include more rigorous analyses of tolerability and efficacy in actual patients as well as in healthy subjects.”

This would mean the FDA would have to reconsider its formula variation requirement, demand realistic trials of different formulations, and make sure the active ingredient in the generic drug delivers its bullet to the same target as the original drug.

The FDA will say, however, that it doesn’t have the resources to guarantee generic drugs do no harm. FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg recently told attendees of the annual meeting of the Generic Pharmaceutical Association her agency needs more people to review the 2,000 applications for new generic drugs, a number that’s doubled in five years.

Her plan is not to take more time to ensure a generic drug doesn’t harm the patient. No, her plan is to charge generic manufacturers an application fee that will fund additional staff to push out more potentially harmful drugs as part of the Obama Administration’s effort to make medication affordable to everyone, regardless of the cost to health.

Editor's Note: John David Powell is an award-winning columnist and writer.

Obama: Bipartisan Health Deal May Not be Possible (March 8, 2010)

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Jennifer Loven

After a day of debate and disagreement, President Barack Obama concluded his recent unprecedented live talkfest on health care with the bleak assessment that accord between Democrats and Republicans may not be possible. He rejected Republican preferences for seeking a step-by-step solution or simply starting over.

Obama strongly suggested that Democrats will try to pass a sweeping overhaul without GOP support, by using controversial Senate budget rules that would disallow filibusters. And then, he said, this fall's elections would write the verdict on who was right.

"We cannot have another yearlong debate about this," Obama said at the end of a 7 1/2-hour marathon policy session.

Neither side gave much ground, sticking mostly to familiar arguments and talking points. The president urged Republicans to "do a little soul searching" but said majority Democrats would decide quickly how to move forward on a priority that has eluded leaders for half a century.

"This will take courage to do," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. said in her own closing speech. "But we will get it done."

With the conversation veering between mind-numbing detail and flaring tempers, Obama and his Democratic allies clashed with congressional Republicans over the right prescription for the nation's broken health care system. Though there was much talk of agreement, each side held onto long-entrenched positions that left them far apart. Democrats seek a kind of broad remake; Republicans favor much more modest changes.

"We have a very difficult gap to bridge here," said Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 House Republican. "We just can't afford this. That's the ultimate problem."

With Cantor sitting in front of a giant stack of nearly 2,400 pages representing the Democrats' Senate-passed bill, Obama said cost is a legitimate question, but he took Cantor and other Republicans to task for using political shorthand and props "that prevent us from having a conversation."

And so it went, hour after hour at Blair House, just across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House.

It was essentially a condensed, one-day version of the entire past year of debate over the nation's health care crisis, with all its heat, complexity and detail, and a crash course in the partisan divide.

Obama and other Democrats argued that a broad overhaul is imperative for the nation's future economic vitality. The president cast health care as "one of the biggest drags on our economy," tying his top domestic priority to an issue that's even more pressing to many Americans.

"This is the last chance, as far as I'm concerned," Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y.

Obama lamented partisan bickering that has resulted in a stalemate. "Politics I think ended up trumping practical common sense," he said.

And yet, even as he pleaded for cooperation — "actually a discussion, and not just us trading talking points" — he insisted on a number of Democratic points and acknowledged agreement may not be possible, particularly on the trickiest area of extending coverage to the uninsured and preventing insurers from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. "I don't know frankly whether we can close that gap," he said as he wrapped things up.

With such hardened positions well staked out before the meeting, the president and his Democratic allies prepared to move on alone — a gamble with political risks no matter how they do that.

The option preferred by the White House and progressives in the Democratic caucus is the reconciliation route. GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander asked Democrats to swear it off, while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., defended it. Obama weighed in with gentle chiding, asking both sides to focus on substance and worry about process later — a plea he made repeatedly throughout the day with little success.

A USA Today/Gallup survey released Thursday found Americans tilt 49-42 against Democrats forging ahead by themselves without any GOP support. Opposition was even stronger to the idea of Senate Democrats using the special budget rules, with 52 percent opposed and 39 percent in favor.

A second alternative for Obama and his party is going smaller, with a modest bill that would merely smooth some of the rough edges from the current system. A month after the Massachusetts election that cost Democrats their Senate supermajority and threw the health legislation in doubt, the White House has developed its own slimmed-down health care proposal so the president will know what the impact would be if he chooses that route, according to a Democratic official familiar with the discussions. That official could not provide details, but Democrats have looked at approaches including expanding Medicaid and allowing children to stay on their parents' health plans until around age 26.

Obama himself hinted at a Democrats-only strategy. When asked by reporters as he walked to the summit site if he had a Plan B, he responded: "I've always got plans."

Many lawmakers and Obama stressed areas of agreement, including items such as allowing parents to keep young adult children on their health plans into their 20s, cutting fraud and waste and ensuring that sick people aren't dropped by insurance companies. But such items occupy the edges of reform.

Indeed, any skepticism about reaching broad consensus was vindicated as soon as the first Republican spoke — in opposition to the mammoth bills that have passed the House and Senate. Alexander, of Tennessee, said Congress and the administration should start over and take small steps, including medical malpractice reform, high-risk insurance pools, a way to allow Americans to shop out of state for lower-cost plans and an expansion of health savings accounts.

"We believe we have a better idea," Alexander said. "Our views represent the views of a great number of American people."

Disagreements were not always expressed diplomatically.

Alexander challenged Obama's claim that insurance premiums would fall under the Democratic legislation. "You're wrong," he said. Responded Obama: "I'm pretty certain I'm not wrong."

As with much in the complicated health care debate, both sides had a point. The Congressional Budget Office says average premiums for people buying insurance individually would be 10 to 13 percent higher in 2016 under the Senate legislation, as Alexander said. But the policies would cover more medical services, and around half of people could get government subsidies to defray the extra costs.

Obama and his 2008 GOP opponent for the presidency, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, had a barbed exchange. McCain complained at length about what he said was a backdoor process to produce the original bills that resulted in favors for special interests and carve-outs for certain states.

"We're not campaigning anymore. The election's over," responded a clearly irritated Obama.

"I'm reminded of that every day," McCain shot back, adding that "the American people care about what we did and how we did it."

Said Obama: "We can have a debate about process or we can have a debate about how we're actually going to help the American people at this point. And I think that's — the latter debate is the one that they care about a little bit more."

Generally, polls show Americans want solutions to the problems of high medical costs, eroding access to coverage and uneven quality. But they are split over the Democrats' sweeping legislation, with its $1 trillion, 10-year price tag and many complex provisions, including some that wouldn't take effect for eight years.

The Democratic bills would require most Americans to get health insurance, while providing subsidies for many in the form of a new tax credit. The Democrats would set up a competitive insurance market for small businesses and people buying coverage on their own. Democrats also would make a host of other changes, which include addressing a coverage gap in the Medicare prescription benefit and setting up a new long-term-care insurance program. Their plan would be paid for through a mix of Medicare cuts and tax increases.

"Not only are lawmakers polarized, the parties' constituencies are far apart," said Robert Blendon, a Harvard University professor who follows public opinion trends on health care. "The president is going to use it as a launching pad for what will be the last effort to get a big bill passed. He will say that he tried to get a bipartisan compromise and it wasn't possible."

The Blair House setting wasn't grand, or even particularly comfortable. About 40 senators, representatives and administration officials were crowded shoulder-to-shoulder around a hollow square table, perched for the six-hour marathon on wooden chairs with thin cushions. Coffee breaks were ruled out, so the only pause in the action came during lunch.

C-SPAN carried complete coverage, while news operations from cable networks to public broadcasting were making it the focus of their day.

Leaving the site during a lunch break, Obama was asked by waiting reporters if he thought the debate was engendering a lot of interest across the country.

"I don't know if it's interesting watching it on TV," he responded.

Index of School News articles for the past 6 months

To read a particular article, simply click on the title below

2010 Articles