Pelosi Sells Her Soul to the Tort Lawyers Bar

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

HARRY REID ARMS HIS NUKE: Health Care Reform Bill - Political News - FOXNews.com

So here we are on the verge of a nuclear attack from those we call our representatives. Democrats: Beware the radiation poisoning and collateral damage that will come your way November 2, 2010.

From FoxNews.com comes this piece:

Democrats Pave Way for "Nuclear Option" in Health Care Reform Bill
The Ways and Means Committee has adjusted the health care overhaul package so that the Senate, down the road, could avoid a filibuster and pass health care reform with a smaller number of votes than normally required.
10-15-2009

A key House committee on Thursday quietly altered its health care legislation in a way that could allow the Senate to mow over Republican opposition to Democratic reforms by exploiting a budgetary loophole.

The Ways and Means Committee adjusted its health care overhaul package so that the Senate, down the road, could avoid a filibuster and pass health care reform with a smaller number of votes than normally required.

The long-discussed process, nicknamed the "nuclear option," is known as reconciliation. It's coming into potential play after the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday became the last of five committees to approve health care reform legislation, sending the overhaul proposals a big step closer to the president's desk. Before it gets there, though, the bill has to pass from the committees to the floors of the House and Senate.

House Panel Paves Way for 'Nuclear Option' in Health Care Reform Bill - Political News - FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis

OBAMACARE SUPPORT HITS NEW LOW AMONG LIKELY VOTERS

From Scott Rasmussen's outfit comes a new poll report on health care coverage legislation shaping up in Congress that shows that support for the Democrat plans has hit a new low among likely voters.

Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% are opposed to the plan.

Senior citizens are less supportive of the plan than younger voters. In the latest survey, just 33% of seniors favor the plan while 59% are opposed. The intensity gap among seniors is significant. Only 16% of the over-65 crowd Strongly Favors the legislation while 46% are Strongly Opposed.

Read the whole report here

45% of Medical Professionals May Retire if Obama/Dem Care Becomes Law

From Investors Business Daily comes this cautionary story about how the majority of MD's in the United States view the Democrat health plans now emerging from Congress

Grim Prognosis From Doctors Opposed To Health Care Plan

By TERRY JONES, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 09/16/2009 07:07 PM ET

Doctor opposition to health care overhaul proposals is broad and deep, revealing concerns not just about soaring costs, declining care, possible rationing and a lack of limits on malpractice suits, but also about government competence and motives, detailed responses to a new IBD/TIPP Poll show.

As reported Wednesday, 65% of the 1,376 practicing physicians who responded to a mailed questionnaire over the last two weeks said they opposed health care plans that have emerged from the administration and Congress. Just 33% supported them.

Perhaps the most shocking result: 45% of these professionals said they would consider closing their practices or retiring early if the reforms now under consideration were enacted.

The questionnaires were sent out Aug. 28 to 25,600 doctors nationwide. The sample was purchased from a list broker, Lake Group Media of Rye, N.Y. One hundred of those responding were retired, and their answers were not included in the final results.

Our poll also invited those taking part to tell us the reasons why they didn't like the health care reforms — or, in the minority of cases, why they did. The outpouring of written responses IBD received — about 1,300 in all — was stunning.

Doctors Speak Up

Those in Washington would do well to pay attention to the 65% who don't like reforms, whom we will quote today. (Tomorrow we will give space to the minority of doctors who support reform.)

These opposing physicians' opinions will be significant for the upcoming debate over health care, since any program that's passed will depend greatly on the support of doctors.

That includes the new plan unveiled Wednesday by Sen. Max Baucus. This plan, which Baucus estimates will cost an estimated $856 billion over 10 years, includes health care "co-ops" to compete with private insurers, and will likely require large tax hikes on many Americans — including the middle class.

Given the proliferation of plans, we wondered: What is it that bothers doctors so?

21 Objections

In combing through the responses, we identified no fewer than 21 separate issues doctors felt either weren't addressed or weren't solved by proposed reforms. The issues are many, but boil down to three big categories: costs, controls and courts.

One complaint was common: Doctors feared any government reform would turn into a kind of "socialized" medicine. Some were quite blunt: "I oppose socialism in all its forms or incarnations ... government should be shrunk drastically, not expanded."

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., leaves his health care news conference on Capitol Hill. Baucus' $856 billion plan drew criticism from liberals and Republicans. AP View Enlarged Image

"No government 'option' or government-run program should be allowed," said another doctor. "It would ultimately lead to total government takeover of health care, with high costs and low quality."

The strong convictions of some came from a direct experience with socialism. "We came from a socialist country and we know socialized systems do not work!!!" wrote one emphatic physician.

Still others were adamant that any nationalized health care scheme — and a significant number see the plans emerging from Congress and the White House as just that — is against basic American constitutional law.

"This unconstitutional plan gives sovereignty over our bodies to unelected, unaccountable, ignorant bureaucrats," went one response along these lines. "Every governmental micromanagement of our lives has failed in its objective, and caused moral and economic bankruptcy."

But constitutional concerns were eclipsed by anger over the lack of tort reform — mentioned by hundreds of respondents. Physicians say they practice too much defensive medicine, which drives up costs, just to protect themselves from lawsuits.

The costs of this are enormous, though hard to precisely quantify. Estimates range from $100 billion to $200 billion in total added costs to both doctors and patients. Doctors in some specialties, such as neurology, pay as much as $250,000 a year for malpractice insurance.

Fear Of Lawyers

A number of our respondents used identical wording for why they didn't support health care reform: "No tort reform."

"The more lawsuits against doctors, the more testing is done," said one respondent, uttering a frequent complaint. "The government never interferes with lawyers — why? They are afraid, or they're all lawyers."

A big issue for others was efficiency. They fear government control would mean massive waste and interference with their practices. "All the efficiency of the post office, all the compassion of the motor vehicle bureau," quipped one doctor.

Another looming worry: exploding costs. With expectations that the government will spend upward of $1 trillion on reform, doctors fear the inevitable controls, including rationing, that will come to rein in costs down the road.

"A government-run plan will be too expensive and will not be effective," according to one physician. "The plan will expect doctors to take a lower fee for a given service. The private plans will follow, and outpatient medical services will be forced out of business."

This is "typical government, throwing trillions of dollars in one swoop to 'fix' the system," said another. "They need to slow down, dissect the system and fix it properly."

"There will be mandated protocols, long waits, rationing of care, infringement upon a doctor's right of conscience, abortion paid for by (tax) dollars, with eventual euthanasia and infanticide," said still another, voicing the ethical concerns of many.

The federal government's notorious lack of success in running enterprises of any size, let alone one as big and complicated as a health care system — was also cited frequently.

"Health care in the VA (Veterans' Administration) shows how well government can render care," said one. "It is disgraceful."

Gov't Can't Run Diddly

Others pointed to the troubles with government-run Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which are all verging on insolvency and now account for an estimated $51 trillion in unfunded liabilities over the next half-century.

Government-funded rail was a favorite foil — so was the Cash for Clunkers program. The House health bill "is 1,200-plus pages of miniature and legalese," joked one eye-sore physician. "Please recall 130 pages of forms for each 'cash for clunkers' transaction!"

"Government control? Give me a break," said another. "Look what they've done to Social Security, the Post Office, the bailouts, etc. Medicare and Medicaid are not paying doctors enough, and the paperwork to participate is huge."

Other irate docs agreed: "Government has proven unable to manage many other programs, including Social Security, Medicare, and the postal service. Why do they think they can (run) a health care program?"

"Government health care will wipe out the private insurance companies," said another. "Most of the doctors in private practice will give up ... because of a low reimbursement from the government. The Medicare, Medicaid program is a good example of government-run health care."

Still others railed against what they saw as the real villains: insurance companies. Anger at insurance companies, which are now the main brake on health care costs, was plentiful.

"Between the government and insurance companies, I now only collect 28% to 30% of billed charges. No other business can function at that rate," this doctor added.

As many noted, all of the plans now being discussed would require massive tax hikes — and debt.

Foreign Experience

Many of those who opposed the plan had a unique perspective: They had practiced or lived under national health care systems in other countries.

Their comments about the experience were often scathing. To paraphrase progressive journalist Lincoln Steffens, they have seen the future — and it doesn't work.

"I trained and worked in Canada prior to coming to the U.S.," went one typical letter. "The same arguments were used in Canada to launch 'universal health care.' It is anything but universal and free."

Others had similar complaints.

"I did two years of training in Canada — disaster. When the government needed money, it decided patients with a stroke would not get a hospital bed. I had to have interns carry hemiplegic (a condition in which half a patient's body is paralyzed) patients to their families' cars."

"I am a former Canadian and I am a physician," added another. "I know a lot about government-run health care. If it's so good, then all members of Congress, the president and all federal employees should be the first to try it."

'Real Horror Stories'

Yet another: "I don't believe Congress has the requisite knowledge to know what to do with health care. After experiencing Britain's health care system firsthand, I cannot feel anything positive about government-run health care."

"I grew up and was trained in Romania," still another physician said. "At the time, it was a communist country with a socialist medical system. The system continued after the communist regime fell. I find this socialist health care system a complete disaster with real horror stories being heard every day with huge limitations in health care and huge bureaucracy."

Others argued passionately on behalf of the quality of the U.S. health care system — while admitting it has faults.

"I have firsthand experience with European and Canadian national health plans — they stink," said one physician. "My medical training was at the Mayo Clinic where people came from all over the world. Why did they come? Because we have the best (care) in the world."

That was echoed by many others who wondered why 18% of the U.S. economy needed to be put under direct government control to cover the 40-million-plus uninsured — and how we could care for millions more people, while supposedly cutting costs, without increasing the number of physicians.

More Taxes, Debt

As many noted, all of the plans now being discussed would require massive tax hikes — and debt — for little real benefit.

"It will take away consumer choice, drive up health care costs, and drive down health care quality," said one. "It will sharply increase the demand for health care providers and sharply decrease the supply as doctors like me will retire early and students will avoid the field."

"No need to overhaul the whole system," summed up one doctor. "Just find a solution to the 47 million that have no insurance."

"Unless the government uses magic tricks," argued another, "it is impossible to care for 47 million uninsured people and lower the cost."

The disgust with the notion of a government-run system was almost palpable in some comments:

"The U.S. government is already bankrupt. Its health care plan is too expensive," said one typical comment. "The government will end up rationing health care. Taxes will surely go up for the middle and upper class. We are in a recession."

He added: "This is not a good time to increase government expenditures and increase taxes."

Friday: A second opinion — from the doctors who support reform.

Backdoor BOTUS: Obama Does Want Coverage For Illegals... by Making em all Legal

From the Washington Times comes the following story - via Drudge - that Boz does indeed want to extend medical insurance coverage to any and all in the USA legally, basically by rahming through comprehensive immigration reform that would instantly make the 12 million or so illegal aliens now here, legal, medically insured and SEIU member eligible.

Obama: Legalize illegals to get them health care

President Obama said this week that his health care plan won't cover illegal immigrants, but argued that's all the more reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually do get coverage.

He also staked out a position that anyone in the country legally should be covered - a major break with the 1996 welfare reform bill, which limited most federal public assistance programs only to citizens and longtime immigrants.

"Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken," Mr. Obama said Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. "That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else.

Mr. Obama added, "If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."

Republicans said that amounts to an amnesty, calling it a backdoor effort to make sure current illegal immigrants get health care.

"It is ironic that the president told the American people that illegal immigrants should not be covered by the health care bill, but now just days later he's talking about letting them in the back door," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

"If the American people do not want to provide government health care for illegal immigrants, why would they support giving them citizenship, the highest honor America can bestow?" Mr. Smith said.

Read the rest of the story here

Dumb Dems Alienate Yet Another Constituency: Hollywood

Hahahahaha...

Go right ahead guys. You've got my blessings on THAT tax, PROVIDED that you don't let actors take a credit on the tummy-tuck/face-lift tax against their Federal income taxes.

Hahahahaha.....

Plastic Surgery Tax Eyed As Revenue Raiser

Monday, July 27, 2009

Face-lifts, tummy tucks and hair transplants could be hit with a new tax to help finance the trillion-dollar healthcare overhaul plan, according to sources familiar with the Senate talks.

The Senate Finance Committee has discussed imposing a 10 percent excise tax on cosmetic surgery deemed unnecessary for medical purposes. The idea was broached in a meeting with OMB Director Orszag in mid-July, after which Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus told reporters he had heard some "interesting," "creative," and "kind of fun" ideas.

The tax, which has not been officially scored, would plug some of the revenue gap senators are seeking to fill to keep on schedule for a markup the week of Aug. 3. It would target procedures prohibited under Section 213 of the tax code, which deals with itemized deductions for medical expenses not covered by health insurance.

The 1990 deficit-reduction law prohibited taxpayers from taking deductions for cosmetic surgery "unless the surgery or procedure is necessary to ameliorate a deformity arising from, or directly related to, a congenital abnormality, a personal injury resulting from an accident or trauma, or a disfiguring disease."

The law defines cosmetic surgery as "any procedure which is directed at improving the patient's appearance and does not meaningfully promote the proper function of the body or prevent or treat illness or disease."

According to the IRS, deductions for procedures such as reconstructive surgery due to cancer or laser eye surgery would be allowed. But nose jobs, liposuction, teeth-whitening procedures and Botox injections to smooth wrinkles would be prohibited under Sec. 213 and subject to the new tax.

For the balance of the story, click HERE

Lawyers & ObamaCare: A Nice Return on Their Investment

This comes directly from Michelle Malkin's blog. Normally I would have posted a comment at her site, but for some reason my WordPress login isn't recognized by Michelle's site, so, I'll comment here. First, her post:

Exposed: A trial lawyers’ pay-off in Obamacare

By Michelle Malkin • July 22, 2009 01:42 PM

Walter Olson has the scoop on how Dems tried to stuff goodies for trial lawyers in the House Democrats’ health care takeover bill.

Republicans apparently stymied those efforts last week, but like the Terminator, they’ll be back.

Keep an eye on this one:

Just before the House leadership’s 794-page health care reform bill went to a Ways & Means markup last Thursday, a remarkable provision was slipped in that amounts to one of the more audacious and far-reaching trial lawyer power grabs seen on Capitol Hill in a while. Republicans managed to fend it off for the moment–but don’t be surprised if it shows up again down the road in some form.

The provision would have drastically widened the scope of lawsuits against what are known as Medicare third-party defendants…

…The language slipped into the health bill would greatly expand the scope of these suits against third parties, while doing something entirely new, namely allow freelance lawyers to file them on behalf of the government–without asking permission–and collect rich bounties if they manage thereby to extract money from the defendants. Lawyers will recognize this as a “qui tam” procedure, of the sort that has led to a growing body of litigation filed by freelance bounty hunters against universities, defense contractors and others alleged to have overcharged the government.

It gets worse…

This story really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Obama is a lawyer and a Democrat in the hip pocket of the trial lawyers. OpenSecrets.org - an extremely valuable resource to dig up all kinds of info on politicians and their donors - reveals that Barack Obama took in $42,829,052 from lawyers in the 2008 election cycle making him the top recipient of campaign contributions from lawyers. Who was the Number two beneficiary of lawyer largess? Hillary Clinton at $16,037,641 (or 37.44% of Barack's take from members of the profession) No surprises there either. See, OpenSecrets.org. Of the 750 Million Dollars Obama raised, lawyers gave just a little over 5.7% of the total.

In the 2008 campaign cycle Lawyers (as a subset of campaign contributors) gave to Democrat candidates ($178 Million) at a rate of a little bit more than 3 to 1 over Republicans ($54 Million) See, OpenSecrets .org

Here's a link to the American Association of Justice (f/k/a Association of Trial Lawyers of America) page at OpenSecrets.org.

Open Secrets describes ATLA - oops, that's AAJ, nearly forgot they changed their name to cloak the guilty - as follows:

American Assn for Justice

Formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA), this group of plaintiffs' attorneys and others in the legal profession now goes by the name of the American Association for Justice (AAJ) and boasts 56,000 members worldwide. A lobbying heavyweight, the association has been battling any attempt at tort reform, including recent proposals to cap awards in medical malpractice lawsuits. AAJ also lobbies Congress on any legislation that may inhibit the ability of consumers to bring lawsuits, particularly against health care providers, asbestos companies or insurance companies processing claims related to terrorism. The association favors Democrats, who oppose most attempts to initiate tort reform.

Hot Blonde Explains How ObamaCare Will Ultimately Tank the Economy

Hot blonde Shelly Roche of ByteStyle.tv explains that which Congressional Democrats and the White House with all their Ivy educations just can't seem to grasp: The Obvious

Cato to Launch Ad Campaign Against Government-Run Health Care

From The Cato Institute

Cato Institute to Launch Ad Campaign Against Government-Run Health Care

The Cato Institute will launch an ad campaign Thursday highlighting under-reported poll data showing Americans’ concerns that current health care reform plans will raise costs, limit choice and reduce the quality of their health care.

The campaign will feature full-page ads in major national newspapers, in addition to radio spots focusing on why government-run health care cannot address the problems of growing costs and lack of coverage for many individuals and families. The campaign will expand in the weeks ahead.

“Our goal is to help the American public navigate terms like ‘a public plan’ and ‘individual or employer mandates’ to understand what is really happening here,” said Ed Crane, founder and president of the Cato Institute. “The bottom line is, most of the plans coming from the White House and congressional leadership will result in a government-run health care system that is really not the best option for most Americans.”

A poll by the Washington Post and ABC News conducted June 18-21 showed that 84 percent of respondents were “very” or “somewhat” concerned that “current efforts to reform the health care system” would increase their health care costs. The survey also showed that 79 percent of respondents were concerned that current efforts would limit their choices of doctors or medical treatments.

As part of the campaign, Cato is running radio ads in major cities across the country. You can listen to them below, and embed them on your own blog using the code on the official campaign site.

Turning Tide: Republicans Now Lead Democrats by 4% on Generic Congressional Ballot

UPDATE

More from Rasmussen Reports:

53% of Polled Voters now oppose the Health Care Reform Package that Obama and Congressional Democrats seek to rahm down our throats. Just 44% approve of the plan. To read the whole of Rasmussen's report on this new data, click on the hyper-linked title

53% Now Oppose Congressional Health Care Reform

July 22, 2009

The health care reform legislation working its way through Congress has lost support over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% of U.S. voters are at least somewhat in favor of the reform effort while 53% are at least somewhat opposed.

Today’s 44% level of support is down from 46% two weeks ago, and 50% in late June.

Opposition has grown from 45% in late June to 49% two weeks ago and 53% today.

As in earlier surveys, those with strong opinions are more likely to oppose the plan rather than support it. The current numbers: 24% strongly favor and 37% strongly oppose.

______________

From Rasmussen Reports, comes news that Republicans now lead Democrats by 4% on a Generic Congressional Ballot.

Read it and weep Rahm:

Generic Congressional Ballot

Republicans Take Four-Point Lead on Generic Ballot

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Support for Republican congressional candidates has reached its highest level in over two years as the GOP lengthens its lead over Democrats in the latest edition of the Generic Ballot.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 42% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 38% would opt for the Democratic candidate.

Support for Republican candidates rose two points over the past week, while support for Democratic candidates is up one point. Last week, support for Democrats fell to its lowest level in over two years.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter.

Democratic support on the congressional ballot has ranged from a low of 37% to a high of 50% in the past 12 months. In that same period, Republicans have been preferred by 34% to 42% of voters nationwide.

Democrats held a six- or seven-point lead over the GOP for the first several weeks of 2009. That began to slip in early February, and from mid-April through June the parties were roughly even. Republicans have now held a lead on the ballot for four straight weeks.

Men prefer Republicans by a 46% to 35% margin. Women have been more evenly divided over the past few weeks, this week favoring Democrats by a 41% to 38% margin.

Voters not affiliated with either party heavily favor GOP candidates by a 41% to 21% margin, showing little change since last week.

Health care remains a top issue this week, and recent polling finds that voters see cost, not universal coverage, as the biggest health care concern. Sixty-seven percent (67%) say that people with chronic conditions such as diabetes should not pay higher health insurance premiums.
Half (50%) now oppose creation of a public insurance company to compete with private insurers. Seventy-eight percent (78%) believe that health care reform is likely to lead to middle class tax hikes.

After a brief burst of optimism in the spring, job confidence has fallen back to first-of-the-year levels.

Following last week's Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, 43% of the nation’s likely voters favor the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's first nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, while 39% are opposed.

If the 2012 presidential election were held today, Obama and possible Republican nominee Mitt Romney would be all tied up at 45% each. The president, seeking a second four-year term, beats another potential GOP rival, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, by six points – 48% to 42%.

OBAMACARE MUST SEE VIDEO....

From Kudlow's Money Politic$ comes this important report on ObamaCare. Kudlow's guest on the topic is Michael Tanner, Cato Institute director of health & welfare studies.

Get this out there:

PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR OBAMACARE ERODING FAST.

From Rasmussen Reports comes news that Americans are not buying into Boz's health care "reform" promises. But the numbers - when seen in conjunction with other polls and trends - suggest something more profound is happening. The gold leaf is flaking off the Bammer and it sure looks like people aren't too happy with what they've found underneath. Read the piece below and then peruse through Scott's other poll results and I believe you'll come to the same conclusion I have: Obama is no longer trusted on the economy by a majority of U.S. voters. [Note to Readers: I have bolded sections of text below for emphasis].

50% Oppose Government Health Insurance Company

Friday, July 17, 2009

Just 35% of U.S. voters now support the creation of a government health insurance company to compete with private health insurers.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 50% of voters oppose setting up a government health insurance company as President Obama and congressional Democrats are now proposing in their health care reform plan. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.

In mid-June, 41% of American adults thought setting up a government health insurance company to compete with private health insurance companies was a good idea, but the identical number (41%) disagreed.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democrats favor the creation of a government insurance alternative. But Republicans (73%) and voters not affiliated with either party (62%) are opposed.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of liberals like the plan for a government insurance company, while 76% of conservatives are against it.

Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters now at least somewhat oppose the Democrats’ health care reform plan, while 46% at least somewhat favor it.

Seventy-eight percent (78%) of voters say it is at least somewhat likely that taxes will be raised on the middle class to cover the cost of the health care reform plan.

Democrats in the House want to tax wealthier Americans to help fund their health care reform plans, but voters are closely divided over whether that's such a good idea .

Forty-five percent (45%) of Americans believe health care reform will increase the cost of health insurance coverage while just 19% believe it will reduce costs.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters say they are following the congressional debate on health care reform at least somewhat closely, with 36% who are following very closely. Just four percent (4%) say they are not following at all.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

How to Alienate Your Natural Constituency....

From the New York Post comes the following story on the anticipated fall-out in New York City should BOTUS and his rubberstamp legislature push through ObamaCare

DEM HEALTH RX A POI$ON PILL IN NY

By CHARLES HURT IN DC and DAVID SEIFMAN AND JENNIFER FERMINO IN NY, Post Wire Services

July 16, 2009 --

Congressional plans to fund a massive health-care overhaul could have a job-killing effect on New York, creating a tax rate of nearly 60 percent for the state's top earners and possibly pressuring small-business owners to shed workers.

New York's top income bracket could reach as high as 57 percent -- rates not seen in three decades -- to pay for the massive health coverage proposed by House Democrats this week.

The top rate in New York City, home to many of the state's wealthiest people, would be 58.68 percent, the Washington-based Tax Foundation said in a report yesterday.

That means New York's top earners, small-business owners and most dynamic entrepreneurs will be facing new fees and penalties.

The $544 billion tax hike would violate one of President Obama's ironclad campaign promises: No family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s.

Under the bill, three new tax brackets would be created for high earners, with a top rate of 45 percent for families making more than $1 million. That would be the highest income-tax rate since 1986, when the top rate was 50 percent.

The legislation is especially onerous for business owners, in part because it penalizes employers with a payroll bigger than $400,000 some 8 percent of wages if they don't offer health care.

But the cost of the buy-in to the program may be so prohibitive that it will dissuade owners from growing their businesses -- a scary prospect in the midst of a recession.

Obama took to the airwaves yesterday with ads and TV interviews promoting the need to reform health care.

As a Senate health committee passed a different version of a health-care reform bill - a milestone for the issue - Obama said on NBC, "The American people have to realize that there's no such thing as a free lunch."

And in a Rose Garden speech, he said the "status quo" on health care is "threatening the financial stability of families, of businesses, and of government. It's unsustainable, and it has to change."

Asked if Obama supports the surtax on wealthiest Americans even though it would break a campaign pledge, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said only, "It's a process that we're watching."

Republicans in Washington and small-business defenders in New York said the House legislation would effectively place a stranglehold on businesses while running off top earners.

"Placing a big tax burden on the small-business community would rob them of the resources they need to create the jobs that will lead us out of the recession," said Tom Donohue, president of the US Chamber of Commerce.

"If there's one sure way to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, this is it."

Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for small stores and businesses in New York City, warned that "in the middle of a recession, it's a very strange way to legislate."

"According to what we've read, the House health-insurance plan would have a job-crippling impact on neighborhood stores and other small businesses because they put mandates on these businesses that would prevent them from hiring people because of the cost of the plan," Lipsky said.

Under the House plan, businesses with payrolls of $400,000 or more would pay an 8 percent penalty for uninsured workers, while companies with payrolls between $250,000 and $400,000 would pay slightly smaller penalties.

Adding to this burden, said Michael Moran of the State Business Council of New York, is that New York is already a high-tax state.

"Any additional taxes make New York even less competitive," he said.

New York would become the third-most-hostile place for top earners to live under the proposed new surtaxes supported by House Democrats and championed by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY).

Also hit would be individuals earning $280,000 annually and families making $350,000 a year.

The profits from small businesses would also be taxed on the back end.

Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, an umbrella organization representing the city's major businesses, said that the estimated top marginal tax rate of 57 percent for New York actually underestimates the potential impact on businesses.

That's because it doesn't include the city's burdensome unincorporated-business tax, which snares many entrepreneurs.

"It could be between 62 and 63 percent," she said.

If the House plan passes, Wylde said, "There literally, at this point, is very strong reason to relocate your family and your business outside New York."

A lot of small businesses would be hit with the penalties for not insuring workers and get hit with the surtaxes, Moran warned.

"Many small businesses file their business taxes under personal income," he said. "That's the way the tax law is written. Small business, which is really where most of the job creation takes place, could be hit hard.

According to the city's Department for Small Business Services, there are some 220,000 small businesses in the five boroughs. The agency does not keep track of how many offer health insurance.

"It's something that's going to kill jobs. That's the result," said Stephanie Cathcart, spokeswoman for the National Federation of Independent Businesses.

Among the most egregious provisions of the House proposal, she said, is a requirement that businesses pay the cost of 72.4 percent of individual health plans and 65 percent of family plans.

Those that don't hit the mark would face the payroll tax penalty.

OPINION: SLEDGEHAMMER HIT TO CRUMBLING EMPIRE STATE

EDITORIAL: HERE COMES OBAMACARE

OPINION: THESE PLANS WILL REDUCE YOUR CHOICE

Obama to America: SHUT UP AND BEND OVER!

From Bloomberg comes the following story on OBAMA's willingness to try to force through his health care "reform" agenda on a straight partisan vote in Congress notwithstanding strong evidence of serious apprehension coming out of The Rasmussen Report about his "Plan".

Obama Open to Partisan Vote on Health-Care Overhaul, Aides Say

By Edwin Chen

July 14 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama may rely only on Democrats to push health-care legislation through the U.S. Congress if Republican opposition doesn’t yield soon, two of the president’s top advisers said.

“Ultimately, this is not about a process, it’s about results,” David Axelrod, Obama’s senior political strategist, said during an interview in his White House office. “If we’re going to get this thing done, obviously time is a-wasting.”

Both Axelrod and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said taking a partisan route to enacting major health-care legislation isn’t the president’s preferred choice. Yet in separate interviews, each man left that option open.

“We’d like to do it with the votes of members of both parties,” Axelrod said. “But the worst result would be to not get health-care reform done.”

House Democrats today unveiled legislation totaling about $1 trillion that would expand health care to millions of Americans over the next decade by raising taxes on the wealthiest households. The Senate has yet to agree on a bill as Democratic lawmakers struggle to get Republican support.

Emanuel, making a theoretical case for a party-line vote, offered a definition of bipartisanship based not on roll-call votes but on whether Democrats have accepted Republican ideas during the process of negotiations.

And he said Democrats already have passed that test, pointing to Republican amendments that the Democratic-controlled Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has adopted.

Republican Ideas

“That’s a test of bipartisanship -- whether you took ideas from both parties,” Emanuel said. “At the end of the day, the test isn’t whether they voted for it,” he said, referring to Republicans. “The test is whether the final product represented some of their ideas. And I think it will.”

Analysts and some veteran political practitioners have inveighed against a partisan approach on such a contentious issue.

They include two former Senate majority leaders -- Robert Dole, a Republican, and Tom Daschle, a Democrat, who is a close White House adviser on health-care issues.

During a joint appearance in June as the two unveiled their own bipartisan health-care proposal, Dole said he believed Democrats could pass a bill by a party-line vote, even as he expressed disapproval of such a tactic.

“I hope it doesn’t come to that,” Dole said. “If there’s not a Senate Republican vote for the package, then the American people are going to be very skeptical.”

Don’t Assume ‘Unanimity’

The Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate to 40 for the Republicans, and have a 255-178 advantage in the House, with two vacancies.

Daschle said he “couldn’t agree more” with Dole’s warning about the political fallout from a partisan vote.

Moreover, he expressed doubt that Democrats alone could prevail, because that scenario “assumes unanimity” he said, and that isn’t the case.

Time is running short for the House and Senate to pass the legislation before their August recess, the deadline Obama has set. In entertaining the possibility of a party-line vote on health care, Emanuel cited “reconciliation,” a parliamentary procedure that a dominant party can use to prevent the other party from blocking legislation.

“It’s not the first priority, or the second priority, or the third priority. We think we can get it done without it,” he said.

‘Alternative Vehicle’

Yet reconciliation “exists as an alternative vehicle, Emanuel said. “That’s what it was created for.”

With time running out, some Democrats have urged Obama to get more deeply involved in the nitty-gritty legislative negotiations.

Axelrod said the president is likely to do that.

“I can’t guarantee whether his sleeves will be rolled up or not,” he said. “Obviously, as this process evolves, I think he will be very clear about things.”

The White House and Congress are trying to agree on ways to cover the estimated 46 million uninsured Americans and rein in health-care costs.